Supersize me...

As usual, I find myself procrastinating when I have important things to do. Despite having to be up early for a lecture at nine and then get on a bus for a four hour trip to the capital, am I settling down to sleep? Nah. I'm browsing around the BBC news site. I was about get ready to turn in, until I came across this article. The article concerns a rather appalling attack on an overweight woman on a train in Britain. The assailant referred to the lady as "a big fat pig" before punching and kicking her, because she was taking up two seats on the almost empty carriage. Now let me say first off, this attack was appalling, and there is no justification for it whatsoever. However, it's some of the points later in the article which cause my eyebrows to raise. Well eyebrow, singular. I can only do the one.

As I said, the abuse this woman was subjected to was wrong. Period. Name calling and physical violence against someone for any reason is wrong. However, the attititude of some "weight equality" campaigners in the article has me scratching my head a bit. The article states "The rise of what could be called "fattism" is being met with a backlash from those who are affected, triggering a nascent rights movement." Their campaigning against "fattism" strikes me as a little odd. They appear to be saying that "fattism" is as bad as other prejudices like racism. I find that a bit hard to get my head around. Now as I said, abusing or insulting people is wrong. But are these people saying that overweight or obese people are a particular group that is the same as black people, Asians, gays, etc? I don't quite agree with that.

Now before I get my head bitten off, I should point out that I, as a 5' 7" medium built female, am overweight. And up until two years ago, I was classed as obese. Either clinically or morbidly, I can't remember. Five years ago I weighed 17 stone and had a BMI of 37. Cut off for obesity for my height, weight and build is 30. I know BMI isn't considered the most accurate, but trust me, back then my bulk didn't come from muscle. I'm currently about 26. something, with considerably more muscle. Anyway, the point is I'm "entitled" to have an opinion on this (a friend of mine has his opinions on the cost of the obesity epidemic to the taxpayer dismissed on the grounds that he is a skinny fecker who couldn't put on weight if he ate deep fried lard). So while I feel an empathy with the sentiments expressed by people who are overweight in this article, I take issue with some of the ideas as well.

Trying to class being overweight as the same as being a different race or sexual orientation isn't right, and is actually a disservice to overweight people. The fact is, being black or gay (as much as many an evangelical says otherwise) is something innate and unchangeable in a person. Being overweight isn't, for the most part. Yes, some people may be more prone genetically. Both my mother and my sister are overweight. Not to the extent I was, but it could be seen as something that ran in the family. Another point is that being black or gay (again Bible Billy may want to interject here) isn't bad for you. It won't kill you, whereas being overweight could.

The article stresses the dispair felt by overweight people at their portrayal in the media and society. They argue they aren't necessessarily greedy or lazy; they have health problems, psychological problems, etc. I'm not trying to detract from this. Many friends point out to me that I had to start taking the pill more or less as soon as I hit puberty, and this is known to cause weight gain. Well, yes, that is possible. But there's no point ignoring the obvious truth: I overate and did not exercise. Again, you can say I overate because I suffered badly from depression. I don't disagree at all. Many people close to me turned to alcohol for comfort; I turned to food. That's the bare truth of it. I can cite as many reasons as I like to make me feel better, to make you think more favourably of me, but that's the practical cause of it.

I don't object to people pointing out the factors which can lead to a person becoming obese. I think this is very important. You can tell me I was just a greedy sod, but I know different. It was something bigger than I was, something I couldn't control. I didn't even realise I was doing it for years. For most obese people, it's about far more than greed and laziness. People need to be aware and more understanding of this. I find it not too disimilar to alcoholism. There needs to be an understanding of the underlying causes, rather than just dismissing people as greedy or lazy. There needs to be adequate services available to help people overcome the problem.

BUT. And here's the crux of my objection to some "weight equality" campaigners' ideas: people cannot be helped if they don't help themselves first. The notion of "weight equality" seems to me to add to the victim mentality many people in this position have (my former self included). Like alcoholics, or anyone else with a similar problem, you can bang your head off a brick wall trying to help them, but you cannot do the work for them. While people who are obese should not be abused or ridiculed, we can't sit back and tell them they will be fine if they continue being obese. Some statistics from the British Department of Health:

60% of adults are overweight and 26% are obese

28% of children are overweight and 15% are obese

Obesity surgery on NHS has risen by 40% in the last year

60% of men, 50% of women and 25% of children will be obese by 2050 if no action is taken

Now while I am aware about getting too histrionic about statistics, that is still something that ought not be ignored. Being seriously overweight is a health risk, and those who are should seriously consider trying to reach a healthier weight. I'm not suggesting bullying or insulting people. That will only have the opposite effect. Simply pointing out the health risks of obesity is not offensive. And if people think it is, the problem lies with them. Of course, I fully accept the media portrays a ridiculous image to live up to. I mean, if Catherine Zeta-Jones is the role model for the "larger woman", then I'm completely fucked. This post is aimed at those classed as obese, and is about health risks, not aesthetics. There is of course nothing wrong with being a little overweight. My current weight doesn't pose a health risk to me, but when I was five and a half stone heavier it certainly did. There are huge risks associated with obesity. And there is a huge burden looming for the healthcare systems as well. There's no point trying to deny it.

Overweight people should not be easy targets, or "the last acceptable prejudice" (is it just me, or is EVERYTHING the last acceptable prejudice at some stage?). Like I said, pointing out the dangers, and helping people identify and deal with the causes of their weight problem doesn't have to involve hurting anyone's feelings. However saying they are a special group who have absolutely no control over their lives simply makes them victims, and is the ultimate in political correctness gone stark staring mad. I'll leave the last word to Stephen from the comments section of the article, who sums it up nicely:

"To physically attack or verbally abuse someone for being overweight is self-evidently outrageous and unacceptable. On the other hand, I'm dubious about the increasing implication that over-weight is merely a terrible affliction visited upon some people at random, who have no responsibility whatever for their predicament. As usual the truth it seems to me is between these extremes: that genetic variability will indeed produce widely different weight outcomes in people with identical eating and exercise habits; and that taking personal control over the type and amount of food consumed, and ensuring proper exercise, will keep the vast majority of us safe from obesity."

To censor or not to censor?

I am a self-confessed Anglophile. I like Britain, and British things. So much so that had I been around 90 years ago when Ireland got her independence, I would have been shot as a traitor. Probably by my own brother, if our verbal punch-up over the Lisbon Treaty is anything to go by...

One of my favourite British things is its Broadcasting Corporation. I would gladly pay the TV licence fee for BBC rather than the crap RTE churns out. I much prefer Question Time to Questions and Answers. It is QT which prompts my latest musings. There is quite a furore erupting over the BBC's governing body ruling to uphold a decision to allow BNP leader Nick Griffin to appear on the programme. Opposition finds its leading voice in Welsh Secretary Peter Hain, who objects on the BNP being allowed to attend on legal grounds. He does this in light of the legal challenge taken against the BNP by the UK equalities watchdog. He argues that as the BNP has not yet amended the offending articles in its constitution, it is an illegal organisation and should not be allowed to participate on Question Time. This is the legal grounds on which Mr Hain bases his objection. Having a long history of fighting racial discrimination, he has many reasons to find the BNP "abhorrent".

The BBC trust, however, has upheld the decision to allow Griffin to attend. Director General Mark Thompson has said that the government would have to make the decision to proscribe the party, as Margaret Thatcher did with Sinn Fein in the 1980s. Speaking to the Guardian today, Thompson argued that the BNP's current level of support warrants their invitation: "It is a straightforward matter of fact that ... the BNP has demonstrated a level of support which would normally lead to an occasional invitation to join the panel on Question Time. It is for that reason alone ... that the invitation has been extended." He argues that the call to ban them from the programme is tantamount to a call for censorship, and that is in Westminster's hands, not the BBC's. Hain, however, argues that extending an invitation to the BNP legitimises both them and their policies.

I find myself torn on this one (as I do on most things. Midget, if you're reading this, I really do think 'Devil's Advocate' should be my epitaph). On the one hand, I wholeheartedly support free speech, and thus deplore censorship. I believe in certain guidelines, e.g strict enforcement of age classification etc, but you can shove the nanny state up your proverbial, mate. I'm a big girl, with my own mind. I don't need the cotton wool blanket you want to put on me. It's itchy, for a start. On the other hand, I can't stand the BNP. I don't care how slick and polished they may be, I don't care if they swapped the National Front's jackboots for snazzy suits, they are right wing, extremist bigots. Nick Griffin has clearly had some success modernising the party (to the chagrin of the extremists who are thankfully too thick to favour political expediency over showing their true colours). He is a fairly good speaker in interviews. At face value, they are almost credible. They avoid the more blatant white nationalist rhetoric of Stormfront et al, but I don't dount that it is there if you scratch the surface. Therefore, I personally wish they would just vanish off the face of the earth. Unfortunately, however, they do exist, and that is a sad but definite reality.

So should they be allowed to speak in political debates such as those on QT? While Hain makes many admirable points about the BNP being "a racist, fascist party in complete contradiction to the BBC's own equal opportunities and anti-racist policies", Thompson makes an unsettling but very valid point: "...It is unreasonable and inconsistent to take the position that a party like the BNP is acceptable enough for the public to vote for, but not acceptable enough to appear on democratic platforms like Question Time." That is the problem. The BNP are not a banned group. They are a legitimate (trust me, using that word hurts my sensibilities. It's purely in the legal sense) political party. They received a slight surge in popularity in the last elections, getting over 900,000 votes which landed them 2 MPs. This, Thompson argues, is why they were invited, because QT aims to include minor political groups from time to time, to balance the monopoly Labour and the Tories have. You can't really argue with that. Like I said, Griffin has successfully modernised the party to reach some kind of respectability. Of course, it is very easy to see that it's all a front, by scratching the surface just a little.

However, there are some people who don't have the time to scratch the surface; they are too busy worrying about things like unemployment. Many people in Britain (or insert any country here really) feel let down and even alienated by the mainstream parties in the current climate. They are in a sense vulnerable, and Griffin & Co are on hand to exploit that. Griffin in particular is no fool. He's a bigoted ignoramus, but not a fool when it comes to politics. He's learned that stomping around in big boots with shaved heads battering Pakis and Niggers around the place doesn't get you very far these days. Most of society has evolved beyond such things. Griffin realises that overt violence, verbal or physical, is not the way to go. You need political savvy. Funny, that sounds awfully familiar. I think remember hearing about some bloke in history class, he wanted to take over his government, so he organised a little revolution in a pub, or beer hall, I think they called it, back in 1923. It was a complete failure really, and when he was banged up for high treason, he got to thinking. He decided that to get political power, he needed to go by the book. Stick to legal means to achieve power. This would be popular with the people, because you can't be doing wrong if you're not doing anything illegal, can you? And it worked too! By 1939, he was the boss! Genius, really. Lucky that during his incarceration he wrote a fascinating book about his struggle to enlighten people about this great idea. I wonder if Nick has ever heard of this fella...

So what to do? Legally, they can't be kept off the air. They have some small endorsment from the electorate. While Hain and his supporters argue that this legitimises the BNP, others see censoring them as being more beneficial to their popularity. I would probably concur with the latter argument. The Britsh Culture Secretary, Ben Bradshaw, puts it rather well: "I have always thought we have to take the BNP on. I have always thought they condemn themselves as soon as they open their mouths. In a democracy where they have elected representatives not just at European level but at local level it is very difficult for a broadcaster to exclude them and it also allows them to portray themselves as victims. We should not give these people the opportunity to claim they are being gagged." While some people may be vulnerable and sucked in by Griffin's slick "I-Can't-Believe-It's-Not-Fascism" packaging, I have faith that the majority can see that they do indeed condemn themselves as soon as they open their mouths. Censorship lets them play the victim card, which will feed into the culture of fear and paranoia they are trying to promote. Nick Griffin's words before the debate give a flavour of things to come, I think. It is apparently his chance for "political bloodsport" to "take on the corrupt, treacherous swine destroying our beautiful island nation". Oh dear. Maybe we should censor him after all. I mean, how on earth can people like that "token Asian Muslim woman" Lady Warsi possibly counter such sound reasoning...

The benefits of a-la-carte versus set menu...

See, I told you I'd be a useless blogger. It's been about...er, six weeks since my last one? Can I possibly have gone six weeks with having nothing to moan/rant/give an informed opinion on? Nah. Much more likely that I've been busy and completely forgot. Plus that makes me sound all mysterious and interesting, so we'll go with that.

So I met up with my good friend and chaplain at UCC today. Having spent a few moments groaning and facepalming over the recent events at Knock, we indulged in some riveting theological discussions of the Bible. Well I find them riveting anyway. I love a good theological discussion, me. I particularly like theological discussions with sane, rational fellow Christians like this chap. That's one of the few things in life that disheartens me really. The surprisingly low levels of sanity, rationality and plain common sense exhibited by some in modern Christianity (and other faiths, I'm sure. I can only speak for my own lot). I'm currently reading The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. I must admit I'm not too far into it, what with not being the best at time management and all that. I do find it a really good read. And I find myself agreeing with a lot of the points he makes. Don't get too excited now, all you atheists out there. You still can't claim me as your own. However Dawkins makes very valid points about the damage religion can do to society, which I agree with. I see religious fundamentalism as one of the greatest evils in the world. Where I would disagree is obviously a) the fact that there is no God and b) that the world would be better off without any religion or faith whatsoever.

Many modern atheists would argue that faith, science and reason are completely incompatible. I would disagree. I consider myself a (relatively) sane and sensible person. I have whopping great blonde moments at times, but I have a few brain cells huddling together up there somewhere. There is nothing in modern scientific teaching in areas such as evolution that I disagree with. Yet I am a card-carrying Christian, and not ashamed to say it. I believe in God, and that's it and all about it. I have no emperical or scientific way of proving His existance, so this will do absolutely nothing to persuade any atheists in the audience of either God's existance or my personal sanity. Furthermore, some tend to find it harder to understand how I can remain a believer when I outline my views. However, this isn't aimed at non-believers or agnostics, so you might want to look away now, maybe go get some tea. It's a plea to fellow Christians to stop for a few minutes and use the brains and common sense God gave them.

Yours truly over here tends to fall under the term "a-la-carte Catholic". I'm not sure what to make of this, as it is generally used as a derogatory term by conservatives. The very term implies picking and choosing what suits one's own personal tastes, right? Well, it's not that simple. I take it as sifting through the pile and picking out what makes the most sense, and, most importantly, is the most Christian. Here's the first major sticking point: Sola Scriptura: Yay or Nay? The answer is nay, folks. One thing I am keen to point out about the Roman Catholic Church (and Anglican Churches) is that they do not subscribe to this belief. The RCC fully accepts the scientific evolutionary explanation for creation. A literal interpretation of Genesis is, to quote my aforementioned priest friend, "completely ridiculous and flies in the face of all knowledge and reason". Apologies to any evangelical "Bible-believing" types out there, but that's the truth. "Blasphemy! How can you say this! The Bible is the infallible word of God!!" you screech, when the rage has subsided enough to allow for coherant speech. Er, is it? God wrote the Bible, did he? No, men wrote the Bible. The closest thing in the Bible which could claim to be directly dictated by God are the Ten Commandments, given to Moses on Mount Sinai. The rest are written by men, and God is generally not speaking to them at the time. The Bible can be called the inspired word of God, yes. It is not the infallible and inerrant word of God though, because God did not directly write, nor dictate and proofread it. Moreover, it has been translated and re-translated thousands of times, so even had He written it, it would not have come to us verbatum. Even Jesus Himself was quoting translation when He spoke of the Hebrew Scriptures, because His mother tongue was Aramaic. See where I'm going with this?

"How can you be a Christian if you admit the Bible isn't true?" Just because I don't believe in the literal reading of the Bible doesn't mean I don't believe the ethos of it. It doesn't mean I don't believe that Jesus was real. I most certainly do. Again however, Jesus did not write the Gospels. And they were not written while he was alive. Yes, Matthew and John were apostles, so they knew Him personally. Their Gospels were not written till at least 30 years later though. Luke and Mark were even later. Furthermore, they did not sit down to write verbatum, infallible gospels. They were writing a record of Jesus and His life and teachings to be used in the Christian communites of the time. They were also not the only ones writing about the subject. By the time of the Council of Nicea came around in 325AD, there were several types of Christianity floating around. The Council codified Christian orthodoxy to follow the "valid" teachings of Pauline Christianity, and compiled the Bible we know today, leaving many contempory Christian writings out. One could spend all day discussing/boring people to death with this, but my point is this: How can people today honestly claim that the Bible is the inerrant, infallible word of God when it has clearly been subject to revision, editing and compilation by man since its inception?

The Bible is a blurry mixture of literature, history and folktale motifs. "So, if you don't believe the Bible should be read literally, and you're not an atheist, then what's your answer, smart alec?" Like I said, the Bible is a piece of literature. Like one of my English lecturers never tires of telling us: Reading should be an active, not passive endeavour. He talks of unpacking texts. That is what we Christians have to do with the Good Book. Read it actively, searching in between the lines. Think and pray while you're doing it. What fundamentalists do is the merely read it and the regurgitate what it says, without thinking about what it actually says, what it means. This is not proper spirituality. This is not true, living faith. It's like a parrot. It certainly seems like it is speaking, but it isn't. It's imitating speech, but it cannot think of words of its own. Why did Jesus speak in parables if He didn't want us to think about His teaching, hmm?

The biggest mistake they make is that they get so caught up in dogma and doctrine, that they tend to leave out a small little aspect: that Jesus of Nazereth bloke. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but He's kind of important in the whole Christianity gig right? What's He got to say for Himself then? Was He was running around giving out and making big lists of rules and regulations? Er, no actually. He seemed to be a bit too preoccupied with hanging out with all those beggars and tax collectors. He sometimes had a few kind words for widows and lepers, too. This one time though, He got mightily hacked off and smashed up the temple. Now what on earth would drive Jesus meek and mild to lose His temper like that! It was those awful gays, wasn't it. Darn perverts! Funnily enough, no. It was pious, upstanding religious leaders being financially immoral and corrupt in the temple. Hmm...Now I wonder...

Apologies for the descent into such irreverant humour. My devout a-la-cartism also firmly believes in the Divine Sense Of Humour. My point is, so many Christians spend so much time condemning this person and that person for breaking the "rules", without seeming to have any idea of who Jesus was or what He was about. He wasn't about rules and dogma. (I know some smart alec will inevitably quote the passage about Him coming not to destroy the law but to fulfill here). He was about love, compassion, justice, tolerance. The tempatations in Luke 4: 1-13 are seen as temptations to power, prestige and popularity. These are the things which Jesus rejects. This is what He is not about. He then tells us in 4: 18-30 what He is about: He came to bring good news to the poor, release the captives, free the oppressed, etc. How many religious leaders or fundamentalists could claim to do these things? He was about the ordinary people, the sinners. And He treated them with compassion and understanding, rather than lambasting them for their failings. He saw the bigger picture, saw the grey shades of human experience rather than the nice and neat black/white or religious dogma. And he did not say a bloody word about sex. Cue smart alec evangelical type again: 'Mt 5:28, "But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart."' you declare smugly. Ok. In the literal sense, this means thinking about adultery is as bad as acting on it. Adultery is mentioned. Where does He mention the endless litany of other sexual sins you espouse? Using a small bit of brainpower to read between the lines, He tells us that our intentions are what matter, as well as our actions. When the Pharisees are criticising Him because the disciples are eating on the Sabbath when they should fast, He politely reminds them of the time David took the Priest's bread to feed his starving army. Ever wondered why Christians don't have dietary restrictions like other faiths? Because Jesus proceeded to tell these devout and pious men that it's not what enters a man's body that defiles him, but what comes out. In other words, it's what's in our hearts that matters. So the basic idea of Christianity is we are all human, we are all children of God, and we are all to love and treat each other well. Our attitude to our fellow man in our hearts is what matters, not what we eat, who we sleep with, what colour we are, or whatever other stupid reason we find for ostracising people. To all those who accuse me of being "a la carte", are you not doing the same in reverse when you ignore Jesus' teaching on compassion in favour of condemning everyone? Come here a sec, you seem to have a bit of a log in your eye there...

There endeth the lesson. Go in peace to get yourselves some coffee and curse my verbose rantings.