Audax- Suggestions for your homework.

17 October 2007


Streets talk louder than politicians. Streets speak the truth, without make-up. Streets reflect what we are.

Women’s emancipation, free elections, sexual revolution, fatherless children, teenage parents, breast implants, fat feminism, large cleavage, exotic children adoption, universal vote, tattoos, piercings, same sex marriage, unisex toilets, social marijuana smoking, artificial insemination, multiculturalism and legalized swinging and the list could continue; these are only a few realities defining our proclaimed egalitarian society, where often individual rights on religious grounds weight more than secular established laws. This reality creates what we proudly call the best of all societies, the pearl of all democracies. We give definitions of freedoms and liberties within a blink of an eye and we proclaim them the sole measures of judgment for the whole world. When it comes to others, our criticism is fierce: we proclaim with arrogance that Afghani and Iranian women are not free because they wear a burka or a chador. Thus, we have invaded or intend to invade their countries to liberate them. But wearing the same traditional piece of clothing, by the same women immigrating to our world, is automatically considered “freedom” by our western broad-mind. If we allow these women to live with covered faces here, why do we make such a colossal freedom statement of this reality translated to their countries of origin? Why does it bother us there and doesn’t bother us here?
Streets tell us not only stories, but they also present us a quite accurate image of a society, mirroring its system of values, human interactions, grade of personal liberty and public freedom. When you see a teen age pregnant girl, smoking marijuana in a park, you have already received information about the society that girl lives in. When you see someone’s bra strap, underwear and buttock, well, that’s once more a very true mirror of our society and of our system of values.
Buttock cleavage is exposure of the buttocks and the cleft between them, often because of low-slung trousers. It is so frequent and popular that almost nobody notices it anymore. Nevertheless, nobody seems to be bothered. Still, when half of a buttock is exposed, it is hard to be ignored.

Ban them
I am not the only one or among the few ones to observe and criticize the liberty some women take (men also) in showing their lingerie, under the slogan “I am free to wear what I want”. I am not that sure. The underwear is indeed an important piece of clothing, dating back to the times of the loincloth, probably the first of what we call today lingerie. But do we have to make a visual statement of it?
In the 90s, hip hop world would popularize a style known as the Sag, which allowed blue jeans or shorts to droop low, exposing the stomach and the underwear, in a desperate ultimate sexual statement. At a closer look, bagging and sagging are another way to hide insecurity over their own bodies. Skinny legs are not a matter of pride for many young boys, so, these trousers are considered to project the image of muscular tough guys upon them. In reality, what they want to hide is only enhanced. Rebels? Tough guys? I am not quite sure, since they have to waddle like penguins so that they don’t fall off completely. When women wearing thong underwear expose themselves in this way, it is called a “whale tail”. The term was coined by Gavin Hamilton in 2003 when he launched a site using the description. If aesthetically this fashion is obscene and a visual catastrophe, it has also moral implications since flirting with indecent exposure is not exactly a probe of maturity and courage. Baggy pants that show boxer shorts or thongs are becoming a major concern throughout the United States. In many school districts across the United States, sagging is prohibited. Canada doesn’t subscribe to anything like this for now, since Canada is doing everything in her power to differentiate from the USA at the point of even accepting immigration rejects from our southern neighbor. In Atlanta public hearings are planned in order to take a decision that might be considered, how else than racial, since sagging originated from black youth. Many pitiful organizations defending our freedoms consider that such a law infringes upon these young people’s individual freedoms. Only that these organizations are not as vocal when it comes to defend our freedoms, of those who are not thrilled to see people using their underwear as a declaration of independency. If someone would like to parade Adam’s leaf and proclaim his freedom, well, what modern society would accept that?
What about nudity? If someone chooses to go to a concert, shopping or go to work nude what should our open-minded society do, so that individual freedom is not overlooked? What these organizations do not seem to realize is that freedom without rules and limits becomes chaos. Thus, the value of our freedoms is given by the universality of those who benefit from our rules and regulations. The Virginia General Assembly tried but failed to approve a law making the sagging style illegal in February 2005. In June 2007, the Town council of Delcambre, Louisiana passed an indecent exposure ordinance, prohibiting people wearing trousers which show their underwear. A fine of up to $500 or six months in jail for exposing underwear in public makes sure that the ordinance is enforced. Legislator Derrick Shepherd of the state of Louisiana in the USA made an attempt in 2004 to outlaw the fashion of low-rise jeans, particularly to bring a halt to the display of underwear under the pants, claiming it to be disrespectful and obscene. People spotted with their whale tail or boxers showing would be fined. The bill, HB 1703, was rejected by the Louisiana House. A similar bill was attempted in Hampton Roads, Virginia, USA, charging a fine for anyone deliberately showing their underwear. The bill was rejected in February 2005, in the name of human rights. School dress codes sometimes also banned pants of too low a rise, or visible underwear. Is it an infringement upon these pupils’ freedom? Yes, would bark some. If the cleft and the underwear are not enough to proclaim our freedoms, we have another one: the nauseating image of the muffin-top. The slang term depicts a person, usually female, whose flabby midsection spills over the waistline of his or her pants in a manner that resembles the top of a muffin spilling over its casing. Muffin-top originated as Australian slang in mid-2003, but has since become popular in other English-speaking countries. It may have been first popularized by the Australian television show Kath & Kim.
As about sitting down with legs spread wide, so that anyone can see their underwear, is quite symptomatic to many Asian women. Underwear exhibitionism found its way even to China, where the traditional mandarin gracefulness is way left behind in history. In west, women became brashly unrestrained, showing as much as possible. Mothers expose their buttocks, proud that their children can label them “cool” because they are sagging. Sagging parents? Hm, probably they are having sex in front of their own children.
In a society where everything must be sexy to have a value, exposing your body or your underclothing is consequently seen as normal. Some women are wondering what is wrong in showing a bra strap. Others simply do not understand why exposing your undergarments is considered indecent. TV shows are imposing the idea that looking like a mother is simply repulsive and a shame, suggesting all kind of revealing outfits, everything in the name of be /look sexy. Women in their late 50s-60s, desperately trying to conceal their age, humiliate themselves wearing girlish clothes. Where is the limit? Feminists have fought not to be considered toys and sex-machines; today, women are proud to show even what is less flattering, splashing a tattoo on an ankle or shoulder or piercing the last vestige of their virginity.

Ladies and gentlemen, must we demonstrate our freedoms with the cleft between our buttocks?

February 27, 2008

Muslim students, mainly from Saudi Arabia, want lectures to be rescheduled to fit in with prayer timetables and separate male and female eating and recreational areas established on Australian campuses. What is wrong in this picture? Obviously, it’s the country.The “students” who made their choice to study there should keep their prayers quiet and private and if living in a non-Islamic country is that demanding, there is always a solution: learn in one of their universities. They could choose one in Saudi Arabia where men and women study in separate buildings and have prayer breaks to cool off from intense studying.

When you start appeasing 7th century Muslims, it will never end.
Or it will end with us living under Sharia law.
How long will it take for the fundamentalist or less fundamentalist, moderate or semi-moderate Muslims to require their host-countries to change flags, national anthems, history books, national holidays, dress code and ask for women and men to work and study in separate buildings? Why not create a sector for females and one for males in every city where there is a mosque? Would such a decision make these backward fundamentalists finally declare their contentment? I never understood why isn’t Saudi Arabia building more schools in Islamic countries, instead of sending money overseas and open Wahhabist schools?
Why do Muslims choose to humiliate themselves, recognizing the superiority of the “infidels” educational system and schools? If they have decided to come here, than face the music!
Under the concept of Al-Takeyya if under the threat of force, it is justifiable for Muslims to lie and act contrary to their faith. The following actions are tolerable: Drink wine, abandon prayers, and skip fasting during Ramadan. Renounce belief in Allah. Kneel in homage to a deity other than Allah. Utter insincere oaths.
When dealing with Muslims, what they say is not the issue. The real issue is what they actually mean in their hearts. Lying is also acceptable amongst spouses, to keep “peace” in the family.
Governments and all kind of “integration” organisms and associations chant a slogan: cultural exchange, better understanding of other cultures etc. It seems clear to me that this is a one way policy: we must learn about them, we must introduce new curricula in our schools to meet their needs, we must be “open” and make compromises and we must “create the proper environment for a dialogue”. This intention is very polite and noble.
But what do they do? All they desire is to live according to their religious necessities and ideas. They are not willing to learn from us or “experience other cultures”. They despise our culture, considering it rotten and vicious. They are not here to eat and taste our food, listen to our music, watch our movies, visit our museums or read our literature.
While they keep ignoring that it is them who have applied for a visa, refugee status or political asylum, leaving “their countries”, we keep forgetting that this is our world we have created and we have managed to craft it so eye-catching that the whole planet would like to relocate here.
We are suggested to educate ourselves and our children to “embrace, appreciate and accept” their culture, while they teach their children to reject what is labeled “infidel” and remain “Muslims”.
Where on Earth is the cultural exchange when it comes to Muslims and non-Muslims?
I have recently seen a sad scene, in a public eating space. It was this numerous Muslim family (4 generations) sitting and chatting. All men were crowded around one table, while the single woman in the group was sitting lonely with the toddler at a table across the aisle. There is some backbone left here and there like La Trobe University International College , the institution that has rejected such abusive accommodations. Director Martin Van Run said that those Saudi students were fully aware that the university is secular before coming to study there. Here we are. Someone has finally the courage to say it. Is it “hate speech”?

Muslims in Australia
In 2006, Australia rolled out a pilot program in 16 schools in Muslim areas of western Sydney on the compatibility of Islamic and Australian values and the wearing of religious attire, including headscarves. The federally 1 million funded three-year program was looking “to improve understanding of other faiths and cultures.”
What about those “other cultures” to improve their respect and knowledge of our cultures?
Australia is under their heel. In 2007, Islamic Friendship Association of Australia president Keysar Trad admitted hearing young Muslims asking their cleric for advice on going to fight jihad overseas. These young Muslims are predominantly university students. Willing to become perhaps “doctors” and save our lives?

In 2007, an “Australian”, Ahmed Ali, died fighting alongside Islamists in Somalia, his country of birth. Ali (who married what else than an Australian convert!) migrated to Australia with his parents in the late 1990s. He went to Somalia with his wife and children, to expose them to an integration lesson. With the jihadist funds and the Australian social welfare, his wife will be living off the fat of the land. Even if under the Crimes Act 1978 (Foreign Incursion and Recruitment) Australian citizens who engaged in hostile activity in a foreign country face up to 20 years in jail, there is nothing stipulated on family members who were aware of the respective activities.

Australia should add this: “and their dependants who knew about their activities get no social welfare”
Keysar Trad is the one who said on the Islamic Friendship Association of Australia website about Sharia: “Sharia refers to the system of guidance in Islam. There are penal provisions within Sharia, these are referred to as Hudood. The Hudood are a very small part of Sharia. The following is a reasonable summation: 95% of Sharia protects the life, safety and freedom of individuals and of society, especially women, 5% are provisions to deter those who would threaten the freedom of society.Keysar Trad”

Unsatisfied Muslims in west had fallen on their sword, making the west fed up to the back teeth. Under false colours, fundamentalist Muslims work and live among us, waiting for the right moment to harm us. The case of the so-called “doctors” in Glasgow and the school bus driver in the Toronto case are only two examples of their chameleonic behaviour. They greet you, they are your neighbours, they mow the lawn, water the plants, complain about the weather. They are “friendly” and “normal”. Until the day they decide to act against the “infidels”.

We are fiddling while Rome burns.

September 26, 2007


Article 16(3) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says: “The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State”. Canada is receptive and wants to satisfy diverse cultural sensitivities. The kirpan in schools, the turban replacing motorcycle helmets, and even the hijab in the army are only a few examples to prove Canada’s cultural responsiveness and tolerance. Like any other democratic country, the Canadian society values individual and collective freedoms and rights. As one fundament of such societies stays the declaration of equality between women and man. But this equality wasn’t here from the very beginning. This equality was achieved through long fight.

As part of the new world, Canada had to put the first bricks of future democratic institutions, shield for human rights and liberty. The path was long and bumpy. Women had no rights, following the historical situation of women in every society. The pioneers for women’s rights had a long way to go. Nellie McClung fought for women’s rights to vote, mothers’ allowances, public health nursing, free medical and dental care for children, liberalized birth control, divorce laws, and improved property rights for married women. She fought for women to be considered “persons” and have the right to be appointed to the Canadian Senate. In October 1929 the Judicial Committee ruled that Canadian women were, in fact, persons and could be appointed to the Senate. 1912 is the year when the first woman in the Canadian history was appointed as full professor at McGill University in Montreal. As for voting, Canadian women got this right in each province before 1940. Quebec was the one before the last (Northwest Territories) to recognize women’s right to express their political choice. This happened April, 1940. When it comes to Quebec, many things are different. Nothing was gained easily, nothing came fast. Women had to wait long years until their rights were accorded in this province. One of such discrepancy is the situation of married women. According to Quebec law, a woman can never use her married name in any official document and is to maintain her maiden name for the rest of her life. I judge that Quebec’s civil law denies women’s freedom of choice, and disregards cultural tradition and choice regarding marriage. If in the rest of Canada, women are given the choice of officially using their married name, Quebec is anchored in a phony law that denies freedom of choice in the name of “women’s freedom”. The origins of the law go back to the creation of the Quebec Charter of Rights, which clearly defined equality between men and women. And this equality was proclaimed by forcing women to stay “maidens”. It is interesting how a woman is forbidden from taking her husband’s surname after marriage, but a pardoned criminal has the right to change his/her name, in order to “protect” himself/herself. This outdated law must be abolished, since the “historical “reasons which determined its creation do not exist anymore. Women’s equality in our society doesn’t have to be proved anymore. It is a gained fight. The war is over. Not changing surnames is frequent for celebrities, but even so, many simply choose to add their married name next to their maiden one. The latest famous example is actress Demi Moore who has decided to change her surname and take her husband’s name: Kutcher. If keeping your maiden name is perfectly acceptable for Chinese, Korean, Iranian or Arab women, which are cultures where women usually do not change their name after marriage, as a European, I request to be given the choice of choosing my name and the right to use my married name in all official documents. Many Arab and Indonesian societies commonly do not have family names in the English sense of the term. French women do not legally change names when they marry. However, it is customary that they take their husband’s name as a “usage name”. This is not a legal obligation and not all women decide to do so. In Hungary both the bride and the bridegroom have to declare before the wedding which name they will use, a family sharing a common surname. In Brazil, until the recent reform of the Civil Law, women had to take their husbands’ surnames; not doing so was seen as evidence of concubinage. Also in Dutch tradition, marriage requires the female to drop her maiden name and take on the husband’s name. The current Dutch law gives people more freedom: upon marriage, both partners keep their own surname, but are given the choice to use their partner’s surname, or a combination of both. In Germany the name law is ruled by sexual equality since 1994: the woman can adopt her husband’s name or the man may adopt his wife’s surname. In Japan, marriage law requires that legally married couples share a surname. In Romania, when you marry, your name is automatically changed to that of your husband and all your documents are emitted with your acquired married name. But, a woman has the choice to request to keep her maiden name after marriage. As a social convention, in many cultures married women are called “Mrs. X” (their husband’s name) and unmarried women, or divorced (sometimes even after divorce some women choose to keep their “married”� name) are automatically called “Miss”, no matter their age. It is a change of status and a change of emotional character. It is a new position in the community and everybody knows that you are married because you have your husband’s name. Taking a married name might serve as daily and public markers of the marital union and the rights afforded thereto. Let’s not forget the emotional factor. Name change is a basic legal act that is recognized in practically all legal systems to allow an individual the opportunity to adopt a name other than the name given at birth, marriage, or adoption. In Quebec, any immigrant wishing to change his/her name is given this right. But married women are denied a fundamental freedom, that of choosing their surnames.This rule applies to all women domiciled in Quebec, even if they married outside Quebec or outside Canada, except women married before April 2, 1981 already using their husband’s last name to exercise their civil rights. (Source: Justice.gouv.qc.ca) Marriage is an institution which joins together people’s lives in emotional and economic ways. Even if in our modern times, there are many contemporary critiques of the institution of marriage, developed from a feminist viewpoint, suggesting that marriage can be particularly disadvantageous to women economically and socially, I believe that imposing any directions in this respect is infringement upon our human rights. I am not a Lucy Stone and there are many other women who are not. Though some feminists have asserted that taking a marital name detracts from the individual worth of the spouses, I request to have the choice of officially and legally using my husband’s surname. I do not believe that any of these feminists is being forced to anything against her will. Since they have the choice of not getting married, of not having a father for their child and the right of keeping their “maiden” surnames, their mission is accomplished. I consider that those women who, on the contrary, want to legalize a relationship by marriage, have a father for their child and use their husband’s surnames should be given equal understanding, respect, juridical and social support. Lesbians and gay couples have received the right to marry, to adopt children. Religious, sexual minorities turned the world upside down and the world decided to grant their more or less queer requirements. In this whirlpool of requests and approvals, married women in Quebec were completely ignored. In many cultures, if a woman lives with a man and doesn’t use his surname, it signifies that they are not married, thus it is a relation of concubinage. No matter how widely such relationships are socially accepted, some women are uncomfortable in presenting themselves in the above named type of relation. When you book a hotel room under different names, it is as if you are not a couple, but some people having an affair. This is humiliating. In many cultures, a couple who is married has the same surname. This is the social sign of a family, the sign of a couple legally married, who took joint responsibilities. Marriage is not a simple event. Marriage is a change of status; marriage is a new life, with a new name. Some women practice their new signature with emotion. The first document a woman signed with her husband’s name is regarded as a precious memory. Some women simply like to be called “Mrs. X”. A letter received on two different names is not addressed to a “family”. If some women do not wish to change their names and want to stay for the rest of their lives under their name of birth, it is their choice. But other women think that it is an honour to use their husband’s name. We must have the choice to choose our name after marriage. If the law is sensitive to human rights, than we must change its compulsory nature and enable women to make a choice. This means respect for human rights. I request the law to be changed and permit women to choose. I believe that the mentality according to which taking your husbands name is submission and you become his “propriety” belongs to the pioneering years of our fight for our freedoms and emancipation. We don’t have to wear trousers or smoke with ostentation in public anymore to prove that we are “free”. Sexual revolution and a tolerant society made everything possible: teenage mothers, fatherless children, fashion that shows nudity etc. What was long ago a gesture of rebellion against social taboos has become in our days as common as eating an apple. I believe that even feminists would agree that the Quebec law acts exactly against our freedoms, thus it must be abolished. I have contacted the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse, but they do not consider that the case of a woman who wants to use her married name in all official documents is an issue of human rights. Since their answer was not satisfactory, I decided to send a letter to Prime Minister Jean Charest. The answer I have received from France Lessard, Director of Administration and Correspondance, is as follows: “Dear Mrs. Lussier, On behalf of the Premier of Quebec, Mr. Jean Charest, I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated August 12, 2007. Your query falls under the mandate of Mr. Jacques P. Dupuis, ministre de la Justice, and will be passed on to him for consideration.”

It is time to move on and put an end to a dictatorial law and give us nothing else but Freedom of Choice.