The Section 59 debate continues to divide the country into two camps, the progressive, enlightened one and one who isn't comfortable with making a progress, and the media, in the past few days, seems to be siding with the latter. Look at all the pro-smacking propaganda dominating the country's media sphere, all the overemphasis on the family fanatic's "pro-smacking protests", "the public opinion is against the bill", etc! The small protest is even reported all over the world, from London to Los Angeles, as the AP wrote from the pro-violence point of view. The Sydney Morning Herald went further to suggest that Kiwi kids love to be hit, grossly emphasising the tiny number of kids in the marches who was brought there and brainwashed by their parents, as if they represent the New Zealand children.
For the polls, they don't even disclose the exact question and method of the opinion polls which they use as the basis of all the reference to the public opinion (a poll yields significantly different results, depending on wording of questions and methodology), and even more, it is natural when the media bombards the public with the irrational fear and emotive parental rights claims, just like a right-wing propaganda machine does, the majority is against it. The media is creating the public opinion themselves and is reporting it which they themselves created. The media has the power to make a sensible policy look like "PC-gone-mad" or whatever, for example, imagine if the media were against the nuclear free policy, had disseminated the fear of terrorism day and night with horrific and graphic images, and a security alliance with the US was the only way for us to protect ourselves from terrorism, how many people would support the nuclear free policy.
This article indeed introduces both perspectives, but it ends with the argument of the opponents that it "catch(es) everybody" (implying "good, loving and caring" parents), which sounds convincing in the article because it is not rebutted. And what is this nonsense reader's opinion page in the Herald, most of them angry rants from regressive right-wingers? Titles of article like "Smack debate fails to sway MPs" or more blatantly, "Public opinions say 'no', but Clark and Cullen say 'yes'"? I didn't know that the Herald had become a propaganda newsletter of the Nationals or the Maxim Institute. Where are the opinions of children's organisations who tirelessly work for the children's welfare, know about the children's issues better than anyone else, and support the bill?
History heads for the social progress, and this is inevitable. There are always people who can't accept it, so some of these backward conservatives in the 19th century opposed Kate Sheppard, inciting fear that voting and political discussions would divide and destroy peaceful families. We think, "what a silly and inane argument", more than a century later. The people will look back pro-violence-against-kids arguments in future in the same way as we see the anti-suffragists now. This futile effort to cling to the "rights to use violence against others because they are young", the remnant of patriarchy, is doomed to fail. Sometimes our MPs know better than the media, and parliamentary democracy exists to protect the country from the hysteric public opinion created by the media. Well done the Greens, Labour, the Maori Party, Jim Anderton, Peter Dunne, Doug Woolerton and Brian Donnelly, you are looking forward not backward. It is great to know that we live in a country where the decent and rational Parliament, not some corporate-owned crazed media, is in charge of our children's rights.
Saturday, 31 March 2007
Monday, 26 March 2007
Jennifer Brunner; an unsung guardian of Democracy
Have you ever heard of Jennifer Brunner? Probably most people in the world have no idea whatsoever who Jennifer Brunner is, unless you are her friend, you live in Ohio, or you follow the US Politics so closely and know what and who really matter in our world. Ms. Brunner is the woman whose work is crucial and essential in saving the democracy in the country with a democratic tradition and the global influence. Indeed, she is the woman who might save the entire humankind from catastrophic damages.
She is the Secretary of State of Ohio, who is in charge of administering elections in Ohio. Ohio is the most important "purple" state in the US whose vote was decisive in giving Bush four more years to destroy civil liberties, Iraq, America's worldwide reputation and the Right to Choose. It will be crucial in 2008, too. She is working to rescue Ohio from the election process marred and plagued by frauds that changed the course of history, and to enable it to conduct a fair election in 2008.
She asked all of four members of Cuyahoga County election board to resign, to reform the board so the elections are properly conducted in Cuyahoga County. Cuyahoga County, which includes the most populous city of Cleveland, is heavily Democratic, and was the main battleground of the 2004 electoral coup (read below). Three of them followed and resigned (some reluctantly) to restore confidence in the voting system; though one Republican member, Bob Bennett (who is also a chairperson of the Ohio Republican), is obstinately refusing to resign. Brunner has started the procedure to fire heavily partisan Bennett. She is, not only a believer in the genuine democracy, but also determined and capable. Jennifer Brunner deserves more media attention, recognition and praise for her ambitious, noble and Heraculian task to restore the American Democracy. Let us hope that Brunner successfully completes the task to get the US and the world out, after long eight years, of the dark tunnel called the Bush "presidency".
You might reject the election fraud in Ohio in 2004 as a mere left-wing conspiracy theory, but read this article before you jump to the conclusion. It's no wonder if you can't believe what you are reading; your eyes are not deceiving you, it IS real, Cuyahoga election workers were found guilty , in the Court, of rigging the Presidential Election in 2004. They are sentenced to 18 months in prison.
So WHY is this groundbreaking news not widely reported at all? It is an AP article; many Ohio papers, Washington Post, LA Times and a few other American papers reported it, (outside the USA only the Guardian did). While just a tiny handful of papers reported, while the others (supermajority) didn't say a single word on the Court verdict. And I don't know the treatment of the article in printed newspaper for each paper (e.g. how visible it was) or even if they published it or not (sometimes newspapers put AP articles in their website while not publishing that in their printed paper). It is not a mere issue of petty, local fraud case; these criminals stole something invaluable called Democracy. What it means is that THIS VERDICT OFFICIALLY CASTS A DOUBT ON GEORGE W. BUSH'S LEGITIMACY AS THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
The hardest media bias is to detect, and the worst, is not biased articles; it is the absence of media reports on an issue. When the media doesn't even tell you that such a story exists, how would you be able to even think about the issue, let alone to criticise someone in power? It is, essentially, a thought suppression. And in this case, not only that so few newspapers fulfilled their role as journalists, the AP article doesn't tell any details of the case; the alternative media tells the truth. The mainstream media has the power to shape the political agendas, but we are empowered not to conform to the values disseminated by them and agendas they promote. Our thought need not, and should not be suppressed by the systematic agenda-limiting machines of the commercial, corporate media.
She is the Secretary of State of Ohio, who is in charge of administering elections in Ohio. Ohio is the most important "purple" state in the US whose vote was decisive in giving Bush four more years to destroy civil liberties, Iraq, America's worldwide reputation and the Right to Choose. It will be crucial in 2008, too. She is working to rescue Ohio from the election process marred and plagued by frauds that changed the course of history, and to enable it to conduct a fair election in 2008.
She asked all of four members of Cuyahoga County election board to resign, to reform the board so the elections are properly conducted in Cuyahoga County. Cuyahoga County, which includes the most populous city of Cleveland, is heavily Democratic, and was the main battleground of the 2004 electoral coup (read below). Three of them followed and resigned (some reluctantly) to restore confidence in the voting system; though one Republican member, Bob Bennett (who is also a chairperson of the Ohio Republican), is obstinately refusing to resign. Brunner has started the procedure to fire heavily partisan Bennett. She is, not only a believer in the genuine democracy, but also determined and capable. Jennifer Brunner deserves more media attention, recognition and praise for her ambitious, noble and Heraculian task to restore the American Democracy. Let us hope that Brunner successfully completes the task to get the US and the world out, after long eight years, of the dark tunnel called the Bush "presidency".
You might reject the election fraud in Ohio in 2004 as a mere left-wing conspiracy theory, but read this article before you jump to the conclusion. It's no wonder if you can't believe what you are reading; your eyes are not deceiving you, it IS real, Cuyahoga election workers were found guilty , in the Court, of rigging the Presidential Election in 2004. They are sentenced to 18 months in prison.
So WHY is this groundbreaking news not widely reported at all? It is an AP article; many Ohio papers, Washington Post, LA Times and a few other American papers reported it, (outside the USA only the Guardian did). While just a tiny handful of papers reported, while the others (supermajority) didn't say a single word on the Court verdict. And I don't know the treatment of the article in printed newspaper for each paper (e.g. how visible it was) or even if they published it or not (sometimes newspapers put AP articles in their website while not publishing that in their printed paper). It is not a mere issue of petty, local fraud case; these criminals stole something invaluable called Democracy. What it means is that THIS VERDICT OFFICIALLY CASTS A DOUBT ON GEORGE W. BUSH'S LEGITIMACY AS THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
The hardest media bias is to detect, and the worst, is not biased articles; it is the absence of media reports on an issue. When the media doesn't even tell you that such a story exists, how would you be able to even think about the issue, let alone to criticise someone in power? It is, essentially, a thought suppression. And in this case, not only that so few newspapers fulfilled their role as journalists, the AP article doesn't tell any details of the case; the alternative media tells the truth. The mainstream media has the power to shape the political agendas, but we are empowered not to conform to the values disseminated by them and agendas they promote. Our thought need not, and should not be suppressed by the systematic agenda-limiting machines of the commercial, corporate media.
Wednesday, 21 March 2007
Interview Meme (2)
This post is continued from my previous post, Interview Meme (1).
The Rules: Leave me a comment saying, “Interview me.”I respond by asking you five personal questions so I can get to know you better. If I already know you well, expect the questions may be a little more intimate!You WILL update your journal/bloggy thing/whatever with the answers to the questions.You will include this explanation and an offer to interview someone else in the post.When others comment asking to be interviewed, you will ask them five questions.
My questions come from Thinking Girl.
In my idealist dream, I envisage the worldwide system like EU Human Rights Court that overrides a national court in matters of human rights. It is this system that brought the historic victory for Polish women yesterday; even a ultra-conservative government of Poland has no right to take women's Right to Choose away. It is not realistic in a foreseeable future, when majority of the world's government don't seem to understand or don't want to understand what human rights means; nevertheless, an endeavour to establish a worldwide justice system has borne fruit in a form of the International Criminal Court, so no matter how imperfect it is, the world is heading for the better direction. And also, as a result of 2005 World Summit, international society's 'responsibility to protect' the world population from genocide and crimes against humanity is formally recognised.
I enthusiastically support humanitarian intervention when necessary, especially under circumstances of genocide and massive human rights abuses, for example, in case of Darfur. Intervention to save human lives and rights doesn't really contradict against the principle of non-violence. Realistically I'm not expecting much from the Security Council anyway, as usually one of three selfish veto powers, namely the US, Russia and China, vetoes to exercise responsibility to protect. (The US veto is usually highlighted and criticised, but China has been vetoing to protect the most brutal regimes in the world with which they have economic relations, including Sudan. These resolutions to save people of Darfur aren't even voted as they know China would veto it.)
However, this is not to support intervention by any country to protect human rights and save people from an oppressive regime. War is also a form of human rights abuses, and actually, I don't really think forcibly toppling a violent dictatorship would always improve human rights, except in extraordinary circumstances I mentioned above. It would be easy if killing a single evil dictator turns a country into a human rights paradise, but the reality is not that simple. War is costly too, to promote human rights we can put resources into education instead of into bombs and bullets. Education makes citizens who can create a liberal democracy, who don't allow the government to be oppressive. So, I don't see a serious dilemma between non-violence and human rights that make pursuing both of the incompatible.
I think the key is that Western governments need to put universal human rights ahead of other policy goals, in terms of priority. I don't know what is going on behind the scenes in diplomacy, but the serious pressure from powerful Western countries should surely have some impacts. However, the West is lenient, or even favourable towards a brutal regime that is pro-West (i.e. Saudi Arabia). For most governments, the ideal of human rights doesn't seem to be an end in itself, but just a (still legitimate) excuse to denounce anti-West governments. And now, the United States, which once inspired the world with its ideals in the Declaration of Independence and the Constutition, is showing the model of torture and human rights abuses to the world.
Finally, as an author of the media analysis blog, I can't stress enough the importance of media in promoting human rights. When the TV programmes people are getting from America tell them how to be nasty and torturous to each other, how to invade privacy of others, how to objectify women, and a horrible form of democracy in which voting is based on each one's selfish interests not principles or policies, it is hard to expect human rights to be truly universal...
5. What do you think will be the next phase of human evolution?
It is such a grand question that I'm not really confident to answer. But it is indeed an important thing to think about the world in long-term (though we may all be dead...). I don't really have knowledge to argue it scientifically/genetically, and I don't really feel like drawing the map of doom-and-gloom destruction-of-the-world type of future. So, I propose, somewhat optimistically, that the next phase of human evolution will be the end of industrialisation.
It seems to me that what's happening now is, that we have amazing productive capacity, so firms can produce more than necessary. But we already have what we need, and we don't need more stuff firms have capacity to produce. So businesses create false needs through advertising and manipulation by making people buy extra goods they produce. And as businesses produce more, we have to work more. So now something bizarre seems to be going on... though we can be working less because productive capacity has gone up, but instead we are working even longer to produce goods we don't really need, and we even create false demands by advertising to sell them, leaving carbon and toxic footprints. It seems that only business owners, investors and advertising agencies are benefiting from this massive waste of resources.
Capitalism is brilliant at increasing production, though it doesn't do a very good job in distributing that equally or deciding what to produce. With the Industrial Revolution, capitalism has indeed raised our standard of living dramatically. I think it's great that we have efficient production of resources and increased productive capacity; the issue is how we use it. We can use the increased capacity to be working less and spending extra time to enrich our mind, or increase overseas aid and make the world's income distribution more equitable, but late capitalism just functions to endlessly produce, produce and produce. One major flaw of capitalism is pictured in the concept of GDP which underlines the entire structure of capitalism, which counts military expenditure while not counting domestic activities performed within households, (in some countries it comprises 40% of the entire production, and mostly performed by women) nature and health, as a Kiwi economist Marilyn Waring critiqued in her groundbreaking work 'Counting for Nothing'.
The Rules: Leave me a comment saying, “Interview me.”I respond by asking you five personal questions so I can get to know you better. If I already know you well, expect the questions may be a little more intimate!You WILL update your journal/bloggy thing/whatever with the answers to the questions.You will include this explanation and an offer to interview someone else in the post.When others comment asking to be interviewed, you will ask them five questions.
My questions come from Thinking Girl.
4. How can we, as a global society, balance the principle of non-violence with a desire to achieve human rights in a violent and corrupt dictatorship/autocracy/theocracy?
In my idealist dream, I envisage the worldwide system like EU Human Rights Court that overrides a national court in matters of human rights. It is this system that brought the historic victory for Polish women yesterday; even a ultra-conservative government of Poland has no right to take women's Right to Choose away. It is not realistic in a foreseeable future, when majority of the world's government don't seem to understand or don't want to understand what human rights means; nevertheless, an endeavour to establish a worldwide justice system has borne fruit in a form of the International Criminal Court, so no matter how imperfect it is, the world is heading for the better direction. And also, as a result of 2005 World Summit, international society's 'responsibility to protect' the world population from genocide and crimes against humanity is formally recognised.
I enthusiastically support humanitarian intervention when necessary, especially under circumstances of genocide and massive human rights abuses, for example, in case of Darfur. Intervention to save human lives and rights doesn't really contradict against the principle of non-violence. Realistically I'm not expecting much from the Security Council anyway, as usually one of three selfish veto powers, namely the US, Russia and China, vetoes to exercise responsibility to protect. (The US veto is usually highlighted and criticised, but China has been vetoing to protect the most brutal regimes in the world with which they have economic relations, including Sudan. These resolutions to save people of Darfur aren't even voted as they know China would veto it.)
However, this is not to support intervention by any country to protect human rights and save people from an oppressive regime. War is also a form of human rights abuses, and actually, I don't really think forcibly toppling a violent dictatorship would always improve human rights, except in extraordinary circumstances I mentioned above. It would be easy if killing a single evil dictator turns a country into a human rights paradise, but the reality is not that simple. War is costly too, to promote human rights we can put resources into education instead of into bombs and bullets. Education makes citizens who can create a liberal democracy, who don't allow the government to be oppressive. So, I don't see a serious dilemma between non-violence and human rights that make pursuing both of the incompatible.
I think the key is that Western governments need to put universal human rights ahead of other policy goals, in terms of priority. I don't know what is going on behind the scenes in diplomacy, but the serious pressure from powerful Western countries should surely have some impacts. However, the West is lenient, or even favourable towards a brutal regime that is pro-West (i.e. Saudi Arabia). For most governments, the ideal of human rights doesn't seem to be an end in itself, but just a (still legitimate) excuse to denounce anti-West governments. And now, the United States, which once inspired the world with its ideals in the Declaration of Independence and the Constutition, is showing the model of torture and human rights abuses to the world.
Finally, as an author of the media analysis blog, I can't stress enough the importance of media in promoting human rights. When the TV programmes people are getting from America tell them how to be nasty and torturous to each other, how to invade privacy of others, how to objectify women, and a horrible form of democracy in which voting is based on each one's selfish interests not principles or policies, it is hard to expect human rights to be truly universal...
5. What do you think will be the next phase of human evolution?
It is such a grand question that I'm not really confident to answer. But it is indeed an important thing to think about the world in long-term (though we may all be dead...). I don't really have knowledge to argue it scientifically/genetically, and I don't really feel like drawing the map of doom-and-gloom destruction-of-the-world type of future. So, I propose, somewhat optimistically, that the next phase of human evolution will be the end of industrialisation.
It seems to me that what's happening now is, that we have amazing productive capacity, so firms can produce more than necessary. But we already have what we need, and we don't need more stuff firms have capacity to produce. So businesses create false needs through advertising and manipulation by making people buy extra goods they produce. And as businesses produce more, we have to work more. So now something bizarre seems to be going on... though we can be working less because productive capacity has gone up, but instead we are working even longer to produce goods we don't really need, and we even create false demands by advertising to sell them, leaving carbon and toxic footprints. It seems that only business owners, investors and advertising agencies are benefiting from this massive waste of resources.
Capitalism is brilliant at increasing production, though it doesn't do a very good job in distributing that equally or deciding what to produce. With the Industrial Revolution, capitalism has indeed raised our standard of living dramatically. I think it's great that we have efficient production of resources and increased productive capacity; the issue is how we use it. We can use the increased capacity to be working less and spending extra time to enrich our mind, or increase overseas aid and make the world's income distribution more equitable, but late capitalism just functions to endlessly produce, produce and produce. One major flaw of capitalism is pictured in the concept of GDP which underlines the entire structure of capitalism, which counts military expenditure while not counting domestic activities performed within households, (in some countries it comprises 40% of the entire production, and mostly performed by women) nature and health, as a Kiwi economist Marilyn Waring critiqued in her groundbreaking work 'Counting for Nothing'.
Though I don't really think that capitalism is going to see a sudden death in a foreseeable future, the nature of it will change and the paradigm will shift. Karl Marx envisioned communism after capitalism; the modern implications of his words are not about the failed attempts of variant kinds of fascism/totalitarianism committed under the stolen name of 'communism' in the past, these are about future. I don't know if communism is the answer. I don't agree with dictatorship of the proletarians, any kind of dictatorship corrupts. But the twentieth century saw some of his ideas realised, in forms of social democracy; though it is facing backlash in recent two decades. And the current global enthusiasm for green lifestyle, increasing support for fair trade and 'slow life', Green change to capitalism seems to be likely. Considering feudalism that once looked almighty is dead now, and the speed of progress that various social movements have achieved, nothing can rule out the possibility of a radical change, though it might seem implausible at the moment.
Monday, 19 March 2007
Interview Meme (1)
The Rules: Leave me a comment saying, “Interview me.”I respond by asking you five personal questions so I can get to know you better. If I already know you well, expect the questions may be a little more intimate!You WILL update your journal/bloggy thing/whatever with the answers to the questions.You will include this explanation and an offer to interview someone else in the post.When others comment asking to be interviewed, you will ask them five questions.
My questions come from Thinking Girl.
3. Where did you live before moving to New Zealand?
I used to live in Japan. I was born there, and lived there for a long, long time. Not anymore.
Some people still keep attaching me to the 'Japanese' identity. Well, it is true legally or racially, but I don't really identify myself with Japan much. I'm not really interested in Japanese music or food or movies or festivals or whatever. I don't believe in Japanese religion, I'm agnostic. It is my past, but not my future. I don't like being primarily identified as 'Japanese' rather than something else that defines me better, such as an activist, a vegetarian, a progressive, a cafe-lover, etc. I feel that artificially drawn borders are emphasised too much, nationality is given too much importance in this world. When people meet people 'from' another country, we tend to ask first 'where are you from?', categorise them into that nationality, and see the person through the stained glass box of the national identity. But nationality/ethnicity is not always the primary definer of a person's identity.
Ernst Renan argued that the concept of a nation should be based on each individual's choice not characteristics; nationality is 'a daily plebiscite', one needs to give consent and commitment to belong to a nation, because "man [sic] is a slave neither of his race nor his language, nor of his religion, nor of the course of rivers nor of the direction taken by mountain chains" (he also said that a nation was "a group of people united by a mistaken view about the past and a hatred of their neighbours"). Therefore, I like to be identified as a New Zealander, but a citizen of the world is fine for me. I'm generally supportive of multiculturalism, but sometimes I feel that multiculturalism tacitly discourages immigrants from assimilation. People should be given a choice to retain ties with a country of birth, but also a right to be free from the country one is born (which she/he didn't even choose) should be respected.
Though Japan still meets the minimum standard of a liberal democracy, patriarchy and misogyny are rampant, and nasty, xenophobic jingoism is rearing its ugly head. To make matters worse, it is hard to see the hope in the future of the country when the younger generation seems to be more conservative than baby boomers over there. The most important thing I learned from the experience of living in Japan is the greatness of the West. With all the problems and oppressions still remaining in the West, I embrace and praise the deep-rooted liberalism, tolerance, individualism, compassion, and the activist tradition of the West. I don't hesitate to claim that the West is the best. I strongly reject cultural relativism type of argument because I'm so sick to death of hearing defence of patriarchy/racism/illiberal practices as 'our culture' and attack on human rights, feminism and civil liberties that they are 'Westernising forces'. Sometimes I wonder if I were born in the West, I might be more critical of the West...
There are two more questions from Thinking Girl, but as it is getting long I will write the answers for them next time...
My questions come from Thinking Girl.
1. Where is the one place you most want to visit in the whole world? Why?
2. What is your most treasured childhood memory?
3. Where did you live before moving to New Zealand?
I used to live in Japan. I was born there, and lived there for a long, long time. Not anymore.
Some people still keep attaching me to the 'Japanese' identity. Well, it is true legally or racially, but I don't really identify myself with Japan much. I'm not really interested in Japanese music or food or movies or festivals or whatever. I don't believe in Japanese religion, I'm agnostic. It is my past, but not my future. I don't like being primarily identified as 'Japanese' rather than something else that defines me better, such as an activist, a vegetarian, a progressive, a cafe-lover, etc. I feel that artificially drawn borders are emphasised too much, nationality is given too much importance in this world. When people meet people 'from' another country, we tend to ask first 'where are you from?', categorise them into that nationality, and see the person through the stained glass box of the national identity. But nationality/ethnicity is not always the primary definer of a person's identity.
Ernst Renan argued that the concept of a nation should be based on each individual's choice not characteristics; nationality is 'a daily plebiscite', one needs to give consent and commitment to belong to a nation, because "man [sic] is a slave neither of his race nor his language, nor of his religion, nor of the course of rivers nor of the direction taken by mountain chains" (he also said that a nation was "a group of people united by a mistaken view about the past and a hatred of their neighbours"). Therefore, I like to be identified as a New Zealander, but a citizen of the world is fine for me. I'm generally supportive of multiculturalism, but sometimes I feel that multiculturalism tacitly discourages immigrants from assimilation. People should be given a choice to retain ties with a country of birth, but also a right to be free from the country one is born (which she/he didn't even choose) should be respected.
Though Japan still meets the minimum standard of a liberal democracy, patriarchy and misogyny are rampant, and nasty, xenophobic jingoism is rearing its ugly head. To make matters worse, it is hard to see the hope in the future of the country when the younger generation seems to be more conservative than baby boomers over there. The most important thing I learned from the experience of living in Japan is the greatness of the West. With all the problems and oppressions still remaining in the West, I embrace and praise the deep-rooted liberalism, tolerance, individualism, compassion, and the activist tradition of the West. I don't hesitate to claim that the West is the best. I strongly reject cultural relativism type of argument because I'm so sick to death of hearing defence of patriarchy/racism/illiberal practices as 'our culture' and attack on human rights, feminism and civil liberties that they are 'Westernising forces'. Sometimes I wonder if I were born in the West, I might be more critical of the West...
There are two more questions from Thinking Girl, but as it is getting long I will write the answers for them next time...
Sunday, 18 March 2007
Sue Bradford; the conscience of New Zealand
"I wanted to know when I died that I'd done all I could do to help all people to have a full life, not just those born lucky, rich, strong or beautiful." - Sue Bradford
We read her name every day in newspapers. We hear her name every evening in TV News. She is probably the most fervently loved and intensely hated person in New Zealand at the moment. Her name is Sue Bradford.
Bradford's bill to repeal Section 59 of the Crimes Act, so-called "anti-smacking bill", has drawn an incredible amount of attention from the media and the public. The name that media gave the Bradford bill; "anti-smacking bill"; is not necessarily wrong, because the bill makes "smacking" illegal. But it is misleading at the same time, because it gives an impression that the Bill is about inserting a new clause, which explicitly bans smacking, in the Crimes Act. Considering the amount of media report on this bill, and that the media primarily refers to her bill as 'anti-smacking bill', the media creates a false impression that the Bradford bill is aiming to specifically criminalise 'caring parents' who occasionally smack their children (Their over-reporting of right-wing pressure group's point also contributes to make this impression). The fact that the Bradford bill allows parents to use reasonable force to protect children from harm or injury under emergency circumstances, which is a crucial part of her bill, is rarely reported.
This illusion of "loving-ordinary-parents-going-to-jail" is just a tactic by pro-violence groups to control people by fear. I mean, not every "illegal" act is dealt with police and prisons. Is speeding legal? No. Do you fear going to prison every time you over-speed? Probably not. Pressure groups, unable to criticise the notion that violence against children is morally bad, shrewdly change the argument from the action (smacking) to the people (loving parents). They may be loving and caring parents, but the act of smacking is neither loving nor caring.
There is really nothing complicated in this issue. Violence is violence, regardless of the age of people against whom violence is targeted. Violence is undesirable and should be avoided. Especially violence against children is cruel because children often can't speak up against the abuse of human rights because of the imbalance of power. Historically speaking, the circumstances under which violence is accepted has been continuously limited as a civilisation has progressed. In the ancient times a war was not considered as moral evil, and now war is outlawed (at least in theory). Geneva Convention didn't exist till sixty years ago. There were times that violence against certain people; slaves, people of different colour or ethnicity, women; were tolerated. This is a part of the gradual progress towards human rights and non-violence we have been making, slowly but steadily, for decades or centuries.
Some opponents of the bill argue for 'parent's rights', as if children were properties of their parents. This nonsense 'parent's right to hit children' is not a legitimate right, just like 'husband's right to hit his wife' or 'a right to kill' doesn't exist. Children are not properties of parents, just like wives are not properties of husbands, and employees are not properties of employers.
Read an amazing story of her life that has been dedicated to the causes to make the world better. And Paul Holmes's interview of Sue Bradford is brilliant and fair; no matter what Holmes said before in regards to the Greens, he's done a superb job as a journalist.
Personally, I met her in the Green Party Conference. Well, I didn't really 'meet' her; I just talked with her for a few seconds. She shook my hand and smiled; 'welcome to the Greens'. Feeling at a loss what to say, I spoke to her; 'it is my great honour to meet you'. She is probably the least person to expect such a formal reply; But I really felt like I am exceptionally honoured to meet her. 'Her face is beautiful. It shows decency, openness and intelligence', Holmes writes. Besides, she has a charisma, vigour and genuine passion of an activist that only few people have.
She represents fearless activism. She is making the lasting, substantial change in the society; establishing the ethical standard that violence, no matter against whom, is not tolerated. Long live Sue Bradford. The great statesperson of our era. The Conscience of New Zealand.
We read her name every day in newspapers. We hear her name every evening in TV News. She is probably the most fervently loved and intensely hated person in New Zealand at the moment. Her name is Sue Bradford.
Bradford's bill to repeal Section 59 of the Crimes Act, so-called "anti-smacking bill", has drawn an incredible amount of attention from the media and the public. The name that media gave the Bradford bill; "anti-smacking bill"; is not necessarily wrong, because the bill makes "smacking" illegal. But it is misleading at the same time, because it gives an impression that the Bill is about inserting a new clause, which explicitly bans smacking, in the Crimes Act. Considering the amount of media report on this bill, and that the media primarily refers to her bill as 'anti-smacking bill', the media creates a false impression that the Bradford bill is aiming to specifically criminalise 'caring parents' who occasionally smack their children (Their over-reporting of right-wing pressure group's point also contributes to make this impression). The fact that the Bradford bill allows parents to use reasonable force to protect children from harm or injury under emergency circumstances, which is a crucial part of her bill, is rarely reported.
This illusion of "loving-ordinary-parents-going-to-jail" is just a tactic by pro-violence groups to control people by fear. I mean, not every "illegal" act is dealt with police and prisons. Is speeding legal? No. Do you fear going to prison every time you over-speed? Probably not. Pressure groups, unable to criticise the notion that violence against children is morally bad, shrewdly change the argument from the action (smacking) to the people (loving parents). They may be loving and caring parents, but the act of smacking is neither loving nor caring.
There is really nothing complicated in this issue. Violence is violence, regardless of the age of people against whom violence is targeted. Violence is undesirable and should be avoided. Especially violence against children is cruel because children often can't speak up against the abuse of human rights because of the imbalance of power. Historically speaking, the circumstances under which violence is accepted has been continuously limited as a civilisation has progressed. In the ancient times a war was not considered as moral evil, and now war is outlawed (at least in theory). Geneva Convention didn't exist till sixty years ago. There were times that violence against certain people; slaves, people of different colour or ethnicity, women; were tolerated. This is a part of the gradual progress towards human rights and non-violence we have been making, slowly but steadily, for decades or centuries.
Some opponents of the bill argue for 'parent's rights', as if children were properties of their parents. This nonsense 'parent's right to hit children' is not a legitimate right, just like 'husband's right to hit his wife' or 'a right to kill' doesn't exist. Children are not properties of parents, just like wives are not properties of husbands, and employees are not properties of employers.
Read an amazing story of her life that has been dedicated to the causes to make the world better. And Paul Holmes's interview of Sue Bradford is brilliant and fair; no matter what Holmes said before in regards to the Greens, he's done a superb job as a journalist.
Personally, I met her in the Green Party Conference. Well, I didn't really 'meet' her; I just talked with her for a few seconds. She shook my hand and smiled; 'welcome to the Greens'. Feeling at a loss what to say, I spoke to her; 'it is my great honour to meet you'. She is probably the least person to expect such a formal reply; But I really felt like I am exceptionally honoured to meet her. 'Her face is beautiful. It shows decency, openness and intelligence', Holmes writes. Besides, she has a charisma, vigour and genuine passion of an activist that only few people have.
She represents fearless activism. She is making the lasting, substantial change in the society; establishing the ethical standard that violence, no matter against whom, is not tolerated. Long live Sue Bradford. The great statesperson of our era. The Conscience of New Zealand.
Tuesday, 13 March 2007
Is she scientifically beautiful?
There are some researchers who claim that Naomi Campbell is the world's most beautiful woman scientifically. And there is a respected, liberal newspaper that reports the research. I am sure that the Independent has better stories to tell, considering it is owned neither by Rupert Murdoch nor by Larry Flynt.
Beauty is subjective. The researchers would have probably thought of the Platonic 'form' of beauty, the absolute criteria of beauty to which everything can be compared. Well, this 'standard' of beauty is based on winners of a beauty competition (the article doesn't even mention which country, it is possible that it is a Polish one, considering that the research was conducted by the University of Gdansk). It is so obvious that the concept of beauty depends on culture and is shaped by culture; no matter if you agree with postmodernism or not, we all know that Peruvians or Samoans have different standards of beauty from the Polish or Americans. And it goes without saying that every individual has different views on beauty.
If the research were only flawed and useless I could have just ignored it, but this kind of research on beauty promotes ugly ideas, such as that beauty only stems from physical appearance. 'Beauty' is a deep concept, and it is certainly not something that can be measured by number; the beautiful mind, not pretty face, sexy legs or 19.5% calf girth to height percentage, is the real beauty. I don't think anyone is beautiful unless s/he has a beautiful soul. The ideology behind this research reduces real, living human beings to numbers, things, objects.
This research isn't only targeting women, so it may not be explicitly sexist, but the comment of the leading researcher's "Attractiveness of a woman's body is one of the most important factors in mate selection" is outrageous and outright misogynistic. This poisonous view that women's virtue is attractiveness, and 'unattractive' (from men's point of view, only based on physical appearances) women are not as worth as 'attractive' women, sickens me to the core of my heart. Placing utmost values on physical attractiveness is objectification (it is same for men too, objectification of both women and men is hardly better than objectification of women, but objectification of women is more serious because it is entrenched in the society).
I am annoyed, saddened and exasperated to see that this sort of nonsense is coming out from the academia, which ought to be the beacon of society to guide the public to the path of wisdom and justice, not the servant of the beauty industry. The holy grail of the fashion and beauty industries? Measuring a person's (especially a women's) worth and beauty only by BMI or waist-to-chest-ration is holy? It is nothing more than inane, it is ugly, and nothing less than unholy.
Beauty is subjective. The researchers would have probably thought of the Platonic 'form' of beauty, the absolute criteria of beauty to which everything can be compared. Well, this 'standard' of beauty is based on winners of a beauty competition (the article doesn't even mention which country, it is possible that it is a Polish one, considering that the research was conducted by the University of Gdansk). It is so obvious that the concept of beauty depends on culture and is shaped by culture; no matter if you agree with postmodernism or not, we all know that Peruvians or Samoans have different standards of beauty from the Polish or Americans. And it goes without saying that every individual has different views on beauty.
If the research were only flawed and useless I could have just ignored it, but this kind of research on beauty promotes ugly ideas, such as that beauty only stems from physical appearance. 'Beauty' is a deep concept, and it is certainly not something that can be measured by number; the beautiful mind, not pretty face, sexy legs or 19.5% calf girth to height percentage, is the real beauty. I don't think anyone is beautiful unless s/he has a beautiful soul. The ideology behind this research reduces real, living human beings to numbers, things, objects.
This research isn't only targeting women, so it may not be explicitly sexist, but the comment of the leading researcher's "Attractiveness of a woman's body is one of the most important factors in mate selection" is outrageous and outright misogynistic. This poisonous view that women's virtue is attractiveness, and 'unattractive' (from men's point of view, only based on physical appearances) women are not as worth as 'attractive' women, sickens me to the core of my heart. Placing utmost values on physical attractiveness is objectification (it is same for men too, objectification of both women and men is hardly better than objectification of women, but objectification of women is more serious because it is entrenched in the society).
I am annoyed, saddened and exasperated to see that this sort of nonsense is coming out from the academia, which ought to be the beacon of society to guide the public to the path of wisdom and justice, not the servant of the beauty industry. The holy grail of the fashion and beauty industries? Measuring a person's (especially a women's) worth and beauty only by BMI or waist-to-chest-ration is holy? It is nothing more than inane, it is ugly, and nothing less than unholy.
Friday, 9 March 2007
Blog Against Sexism Day: Objectification of Women and Media
In her masterpiece 'the Second Sex', Simone de Beauvoir, a French feminist, analysed women's roles and positions in the society from an existentialist point of view. "She is defined and differentiated with reference to man and not he with reference to her; she is the incidental, the inessential as opposed to the essential. He is the Subject, he is the Absolute – she is the Other", she perceptively wrote. "Now, woman has always been man’s dependant, if not his slave; the two sexes have never shared the world in equality", she wrote in 1949, heralding the age of second-wave feminism. Fifty-eight years later, are the two sexes sharing the world in equality today?
The progress feminism has made in last sixty years, at least in the Western world, has been nothing less than phenomenal; feminist thinkers and activists, such as Betty Friedan and Kate Millet, transformed our thinking and started to shift the very basic paradigm of the society. We had Roe v. Wade. And now, in 2007, I'm writing this from a country where the Prime Minister, the Speaker of the Parliament, and the Chief Justice are all women.
However, we shouldn't get too illuminated and blinded by the brightness of feminism's success; it would be wrong to assert that feminism has achieved its goals, even in the West. The two sexes have never shared the world in equality, and aren't sharing the world in equality, in 2007. Women haven't even achieved the equal political representation (if you doubt it, try to name a country that has 50% representation of women in Parliament, or a female Prime Minister of Sweden, which is undoubtedly one of the most feminist countries in the world), and this fundamental structure of the society which de Beauvoir depicted, designation of women as the Other, is yet to be broken down.
"She appears essentially to the male as a sexual being. For him she is sex – absolute sex, no less", she wrote in 1949. Her account has never been more relevant than in now. As you can see, women are depicted as sex objects, everywhere, in media. Everywhere. Sexualisation of women, and recently young girls, gravely harms their mental health and self-esteem, the crucial factor in their Mind and well-being. (I recommend you to read a full report of the American Psychological Association on this topic, at here.) This dogma that the main source of a woman's worth is her sexual or physical attractiveness. This ideology that the kindness and intelligence are less important for women; Body above Mind. The indoctorination that women should pursue the 'ideal' body image that is digitally enhanced and a total illusion, or otherwise she is not as worthy. This relationship between the One and the Other.
It is ironic that sexual liberation was one of the main themes of the sixties, and one of the main goals of feminism. Feminists fought to break the old, hypocritical sexual chastity imposed only on women, virginity worship, and constraints that deprived women of sexual pleasure. Now, the sexual revolution seems to have been successful; and women are still treated as the Other and the Object. Why has this happened? I think one of the answers is that the sexual revolution ended up far more successful than feminism. When sexual freedom is introduced into a society that hasn't deconstructed the patriarchy, the outcome would be a grim one; from this unholy union of sexual freedom and patriarchy, it is natural that pornography and sexist advertising are born. I am not saying depicting sex or naked bodies is inherently sexist or objectifying; the real problem is how we treat them, how we depict them. Or rather, how the media depict them.
Why was the sexual revolution so successful, then? Because the sex revolution met the needs of the capitalist society; businesses loved it. The commercial media loved it. Sex sells. In a capitalist society, what contributes to the interests of business-owners survives. In a society where the media is privately owned by a company whose sole motive is the profit, anything serves the profit-maximising crusade of the media owners flourishes. Rupert Murdoch must love the sexual revolution because that's why he could make millions or billions of pounds from the Sun, which shamefully has the highest circulation of any English-language paper in the world. Obviously, no matter how just it is, the commercial media isn't interested in shifting the paradigm of the patriarchal system. And how can an agenda be successful when it isn't even reported well by the dominant media (which is mostly dominated by men)?
Tuesday, 6 March 2007
'War on Terror'; there's something to do at home, Mr Howard
John Howard is anything but what the name of his party suggests; liberal. With his uncritical and absolute faith in Bush, and relentless imposition of conservatism, he earned Australia an honourable title of the 51st state of the US. He is a zealous supporter of the Bush's "War on Terror" in the Middle East. However, it seems that he has something to do at his home; I mean, his real home, home electorate of Bennelong, in North Sydney.
Howard has held Bennelong for 33 years, however, due to the demographic and boundary change of the division, it has now become a marginal seat. For this year's election, Maxine McKew, a nation's foremost and eminent journalist from ABC (a public service broadcaster), is standing for Labor in Bennelong to defeat the Prime Minister. With McKew's serious and realistic chance to oust Howard from the Parliament, the Bennelong race is going to embody the change that progressive Australians have long hoped for.
However, terrorism, against which Howard has been passionately fighting, clouded the fair political contest; McKew has been threatened to death. Men were found holding torches underneath her car at home. And it was revealed that a Green candidate who ran against Howard in Bennelong three years ago also received numerous death threats. It is a threat against democracy, and especially when candidates running against the most powerful politician in the country are repeatedly threatened, the matter is even more serious.
So, titles of newspaper articles like 'McKew refuses to back down' aren't really appropriate. Refuses to back down? Does the Herald Sun expect McKew to 'back down', giving in to violence? Would the Herald Sun write 'Bush refuses to introduce Sharia law' or something like that after 9/11? McKew should be praised for her determination and courage, so 'Labor's McKew stands firm' (ABC) is better.
Why the Prime Minister doesn't condemn this violence? It's about democracy, the very thing that Howard claims to be fighting for; it's violence against democracy, the very thing Howard claims to fighting to eliminate, in the War on Terror. Doesn't he care because who is threatened is his opponent, or War on Terror is just an excuse for him to support Bush? And why all the press, except ABC, a public service broadcaster, don't report that the Green leader Bob Brown urged Howard to condemn the death threat? I'm not really a conspiracy theorist, but "When people stand against John Howard there are some people in the community who react in a threatening and unsettling way", I wonder who's behind all the attacks.
Then, the Sydney Morning Herald published a bizarre article that says it was not a politically-motivated attack. SMH starts the article titled 'McKew car theft theory' by stating "Police investigating reports of men shining torches into the car of Maxine McKew... are considering whether they might have been simply trying to steal it". Police are expected to consider every possibility so this fact is meaningless; consideration doesn't mean it is true, or even it is likely. However, SMH twists it and goes on to claim that 'The Herald understands the incident is not believed to be politically motivated'. What? Based on what? I can't see why SMH can get away with it without providing basis for that. Furthermore, later in the article, it refers to the very evidences that indicate the crime was politically motivated; 'The former ABC TV journalist also received two unsigned hate letters last week but their contents have not been revealed. Police are also investigating an anonymous call about Ms McKew to the national security hotline, but have not revealed what the caller said.' How reasonable is it to say that when McKew is continuously receiving hate letters and death threats, suspicious men sneaking under her car were 'simply trying to steal it'? This article doesn't make sense at all, but many people who skimmed through the article would have simply thought 'oh, it wasn't a political violence to disrupt democratic process or anything, it was just a car theft. It must be true because a credible broadsheet like SMH says so'. And then, Wikipedia, one of the most influencial media in the Internet, said 'police believe this was an attempted car theft', based on the SMH article (I deleted it).
War on Terror? Bob Brown seems to be the best leader for the sacred war to defend liberty and democracy.
Howard has held Bennelong for 33 years, however, due to the demographic and boundary change of the division, it has now become a marginal seat. For this year's election, Maxine McKew, a nation's foremost and eminent journalist from ABC (a public service broadcaster), is standing for Labor in Bennelong to defeat the Prime Minister. With McKew's serious and realistic chance to oust Howard from the Parliament, the Bennelong race is going to embody the change that progressive Australians have long hoped for.
However, terrorism, against which Howard has been passionately fighting, clouded the fair political contest; McKew has been threatened to death. Men were found holding torches underneath her car at home. And it was revealed that a Green candidate who ran against Howard in Bennelong three years ago also received numerous death threats. It is a threat against democracy, and especially when candidates running against the most powerful politician in the country are repeatedly threatened, the matter is even more serious.
So, titles of newspaper articles like 'McKew refuses to back down' aren't really appropriate. Refuses to back down? Does the Herald Sun expect McKew to 'back down', giving in to violence? Would the Herald Sun write 'Bush refuses to introduce Sharia law' or something like that after 9/11? McKew should be praised for her determination and courage, so 'Labor's McKew stands firm' (ABC) is better.
Why the Prime Minister doesn't condemn this violence? It's about democracy, the very thing that Howard claims to be fighting for; it's violence against democracy, the very thing Howard claims to fighting to eliminate, in the War on Terror. Doesn't he care because who is threatened is his opponent, or War on Terror is just an excuse for him to support Bush? And why all the press, except ABC, a public service broadcaster, don't report that the Green leader Bob Brown urged Howard to condemn the death threat? I'm not really a conspiracy theorist, but "When people stand against John Howard there are some people in the community who react in a threatening and unsettling way", I wonder who's behind all the attacks.
Then, the Sydney Morning Herald published a bizarre article that says it was not a politically-motivated attack. SMH starts the article titled 'McKew car theft theory' by stating "Police investigating reports of men shining torches into the car of Maxine McKew... are considering whether they might have been simply trying to steal it". Police are expected to consider every possibility so this fact is meaningless; consideration doesn't mean it is true, or even it is likely. However, SMH twists it and goes on to claim that 'The Herald understands the incident is not believed to be politically motivated'. What? Based on what? I can't see why SMH can get away with it without providing basis for that. Furthermore, later in the article, it refers to the very evidences that indicate the crime was politically motivated; 'The former ABC TV journalist also received two unsigned hate letters last week but their contents have not been revealed. Police are also investigating an anonymous call about Ms McKew to the national security hotline, but have not revealed what the caller said.' How reasonable is it to say that when McKew is continuously receiving hate letters and death threats, suspicious men sneaking under her car were 'simply trying to steal it'? This article doesn't make sense at all, but many people who skimmed through the article would have simply thought 'oh, it wasn't a political violence to disrupt democratic process or anything, it was just a car theft. It must be true because a credible broadsheet like SMH says so'. And then, Wikipedia, one of the most influencial media in the Internet, said 'police believe this was an attempted car theft', based on the SMH article (I deleted it).
War on Terror? Bob Brown seems to be the best leader for the sacred war to defend liberty and democracy.
Sunday, 4 March 2007
Commercialism ignores the importance of journalism
According to the NZ Herald report, TVNZ is going to target the investigative journalists in their plan to cut spending.
It's a typical example of the failure of commercial media model. Investigative journalism is the most important part of media organisations which enable them to fulfill their role as one of the society's integral pillars. There are many other things that are far less important than investigative journalism! What's the raison d'etre of the media? To critique and restrain power.
Commercial media model in which media organisation's primary purpose is profit maximisation is fundamentally flawed. Investigative journalism is expensive and may not have the highest rating, but has an intrinsic value in it that can't be taken into account in the capitalist market. That is why we need a non-commercial public broadcaster!
It's a typical example of the failure of commercial media model. Investigative journalism is the most important part of media organisations which enable them to fulfill their role as one of the society's integral pillars. There are many other things that are far less important than investigative journalism! What's the raison d'etre of the media? To critique and restrain power.
Commercial media model in which media organisation's primary purpose is profit maximisation is fundamentally flawed. Investigative journalism is expensive and may not have the highest rating, but has an intrinsic value in it that can't be taken into account in the capitalist market. That is why we need a non-commercial public broadcaster!
Saturday, 3 March 2007
Update on Kirsty Gillon; corruption in the media
I found another post on Ms. Gillon in 'I See Red' blog, with a comment by Ms. Gillon's daughter, Paula Gillon. Please read it, it's the other, more credible side of the story that the biggest newspaper in this country didn't allow the readers to know. It reveals astonishing truths about the case, I didn't imagine the extent of distortion in the article.
It seems to me that if conspiracy theories are problems, the real problem lies in the commercial media who broadcast these programmes to tens of thousands of young people in the entire country without regards to its educational effects, for the sake of ratings and profit maximisation, not in a teacher who promotes critical thinking to her students in her classroom, by showing programmes about conspiracy theories.
Furthermore, Paula tells us the most striking element of this story; the writer of the article (Stephen Cook)'s "daughter is in my mother’s (Ms. Gillon's) class and it is her friend who made the complaint. " What an abuse of power, corruption. Journalists exist to reveal the abuse of power by others, not to abuse the power they have themselves. Not to slander a teacher they or their children's friend don't like, with all the misinformation. What an unfair society it is, that media personnels with unofficial, unsanctioned yet phenomenal power can damage reputation of anyone they don't like, or they don't agree with. Such misinformation, to the extent revealed by Paula, seriously undermines the factual credibility of journalism itself. I can detect the bias in articles. But it is almost impossible to see factual errors in articles when I don't personally know the people (which applies to most cases).
It is sad to see that a teacher with critical views and analyses, whom we should treasure more than anyone else, is socially punished in this way, by private power. Also, I'm reminded how the Internet is great, without the Internet I couldn't have examined the other side of the story and that article would have been the absolute authority...
It seems to me that if conspiracy theories are problems, the real problem lies in the commercial media who broadcast these programmes to tens of thousands of young people in the entire country without regards to its educational effects, for the sake of ratings and profit maximisation, not in a teacher who promotes critical thinking to her students in her classroom, by showing programmes about conspiracy theories.
Furthermore, Paula tells us the most striking element of this story; the writer of the article (Stephen Cook)'s "daughter is in my mother’s (Ms. Gillon's) class and it is her friend who made the complaint. " What an abuse of power, corruption. Journalists exist to reveal the abuse of power by others, not to abuse the power they have themselves. Not to slander a teacher they or their children's friend don't like, with all the misinformation. What an unfair society it is, that media personnels with unofficial, unsanctioned yet phenomenal power can damage reputation of anyone they don't like, or they don't agree with. Such misinformation, to the extent revealed by Paula, seriously undermines the factual credibility of journalism itself. I can detect the bias in articles. But it is almost impossible to see factual errors in articles when I don't personally know the people (which applies to most cases).
It is sad to see that a teacher with critical views and analyses, whom we should treasure more than anyone else, is socially punished in this way, by private power. Also, I'm reminded how the Internet is great, without the Internet I couldn't have examined the other side of the story and that article would have been the absolute authority...
Friday, 2 March 2007
Learning is About Questioning Everything
Education is important. Great teachers can transform student's thinking upside down. Education creates future; and teachers create education. We need more teachers who are innovative, liberated and espouse critical thinking.
However, the New Zealand Herald tells a story of Kirsty Gillon, a history teacher at Takapuna Grammar School in Auckland, negatively. The article is titled "Teacher promoting conspiracies investigated". Unfortunately, this article is unfairly biased against Ms. Gillon in many ways.
Firstly; the photo used in the article. What a horrible photo, she's wearing black sunglasses, and looks absolutely harsh, stern and unpleasant. Readers would never get an impression from this photo that she's a kind, friendly and passionate teacher. If the Herald had shown Ms. Gillon kindly smiling, the impression of the article would have been very different. Visual image is incredibly powerful. Not knowing her personally I don't know if she is kind or stern, but this image is not necessary the correct representation of her personality.
The entire article has a tone that is supportive of views against her. It introduces several opinions of 'academics' who disagree with her teaching style, while her point of view is briefly introduced in one sentence, in a dismissive tone; "Gillon told the Herald on Sunday she was merely trying to promote "critical thinking" among her students." She deserves the full right of reply. It is unlikely that it is the only thing she told the Herald; what part of her point did the Herald cut? Why aren't there any opinions in the article that support her teaching style?
I mean, what on earth are 'conspiracy theories', and are these even bad? 'Conspiracy theory' is merely a name for a theory that goes against the majority opinion. Who is to determine that a particular theory is 'conspiracy' and thus is not worth to be subject of a serious, academic discussion? Surely we haven't forgotten the age that geocentrism and the flat world were the majority views with authority, and the Galileo's theory was dismissed as heresy and he was persecuted. When Schliemann started the excavation of Troy no one else believed the Trojan War existed in reality. Were these theories wrong?
Professor Langley talks about 'stepping over the line', but it's just his personal opinion that the fake lunar landing theory is on the other side of 'the line'. I agree that Holocaust revisionism has no place in schools, but it is because it is hate speech, not because it is a "conspiracy theory". But except hate speeches, (again, there arises a debate over where to draw a line to define hate speech, but in this case the fake lunar landing theory is clearly neither racist, nor sexist nor prejudiced against a particular group of people.) a variety of theories, regardless of its popularity, should be allowed to be expressed by teachers. Some scientists propose that the lunar landing was fake and some journalists think a commercial airliner didn't crash into the Pentagon. I don't agree with these theories, but we all know what Voltaire said; 'I don't agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it'.
I'd further point out that this article has a contradiction within it. In the beginning of the article, it claims that 'she told them (students) in class that The Apollo Moon landing was an elaborate hoax filmed in Area 51'. But later, it goes on to change the reality; 'Gillon told them she believed the lunar landing was filmed in Area 51.' If you can't see a vital importance between these two, think about this example; 'she told them that God exists' and 'she told them that she believed God exists.' In the former she talks her belief as a matter of fact, while in the latter she talks her belief as her belief. I don't see anything but positive in a teacher explaining her unconventional view to students as her belief and to challenge them to be critical and make up their own mind.
If you think about it carefully, it is a scary thing; a teacher is accused when s/he voices opinions different from an official/majority view. How about a teacher who says the Kennedy wasn't assassinated solely by Oswald? And a teacher who tells a student that he believes Bush knew about 9/11 beforehand? Is it just to say that he doesn't have the right to say so just because it contradicts against the US government's point of view? A teacher who passionately teaches the way how the corporate-owned commercial media and its advertisers are brainwashing us into believing that capitalism is the only viable option in our society has the power to radically challenge student's conception of the society, the most valuable gift a teacher can ever give to students. Shall she be investigated and told to shut up? If it happens it is called censorship, or suppression of academic freedom and the freedom of speech.
Probably, it is fairly reasonable to say that a mainstream theory should be the one that's mainly taught in classrooms. But usually, there isn't a single, absolute, indisputable Reality, especially in social sciences and humanities. Learning is not about memorising 'facts' which others deemed them to be truthful. Learning is about developing an ability and practice to analyse and discern what are facts and realities, among multiple of views presented. In other words, leaning is about questioning everything. And that is for what schools should exist. If you just want to learn the established, conventional view, read a textbook at home. Schools ought to be a place of enlightenment.
Finally, an overwhelming number of ratings and comments on the ratemyteachers.com website expresses support, admiration and love for Ms Gillon. The comment the Herald chose seems to be fair and balanced, but what the Herald didn't report was the absolute majority of exceptionally positive comments like 'Best teacher at TGS', 'one of the best teacher in the world', 'she inspired me to become a political leader!', 'Gets the entire class discussing the topic with people's own opinions', and 'I learned so much in her class. I'm gutted im in the other history class this year', and instead they singled out the comment referring to her 'conspiracy theories', to quote in the article. I also note that almost all comments after the Herald article was published criticise the inaccuracy of the article. She never denied the Holocaust, several commenters wrote, and asked 'What's this nonsense in the paper?? Totally false and I hope she sues!'.
Where's the truth and the reality?
However, the New Zealand Herald tells a story of Kirsty Gillon, a history teacher at Takapuna Grammar School in Auckland, negatively. The article is titled "Teacher promoting conspiracies investigated". Unfortunately, this article is unfairly biased against Ms. Gillon in many ways.
Firstly; the photo used in the article. What a horrible photo, she's wearing black sunglasses, and looks absolutely harsh, stern and unpleasant. Readers would never get an impression from this photo that she's a kind, friendly and passionate teacher. If the Herald had shown Ms. Gillon kindly smiling, the impression of the article would have been very different. Visual image is incredibly powerful. Not knowing her personally I don't know if she is kind or stern, but this image is not necessary the correct representation of her personality.
The entire article has a tone that is supportive of views against her. It introduces several opinions of 'academics' who disagree with her teaching style, while her point of view is briefly introduced in one sentence, in a dismissive tone; "Gillon told the Herald on Sunday she was merely trying to promote "critical thinking" among her students." She deserves the full right of reply. It is unlikely that it is the only thing she told the Herald; what part of her point did the Herald cut? Why aren't there any opinions in the article that support her teaching style?
I mean, what on earth are 'conspiracy theories', and are these even bad? 'Conspiracy theory' is merely a name for a theory that goes against the majority opinion. Who is to determine that a particular theory is 'conspiracy' and thus is not worth to be subject of a serious, academic discussion? Surely we haven't forgotten the age that geocentrism and the flat world were the majority views with authority, and the Galileo's theory was dismissed as heresy and he was persecuted. When Schliemann started the excavation of Troy no one else believed the Trojan War existed in reality. Were these theories wrong?
Professor Langley talks about 'stepping over the line', but it's just his personal opinion that the fake lunar landing theory is on the other side of 'the line'. I agree that Holocaust revisionism has no place in schools, but it is because it is hate speech, not because it is a "conspiracy theory". But except hate speeches, (again, there arises a debate over where to draw a line to define hate speech, but in this case the fake lunar landing theory is clearly neither racist, nor sexist nor prejudiced against a particular group of people.) a variety of theories, regardless of its popularity, should be allowed to be expressed by teachers. Some scientists propose that the lunar landing was fake and some journalists think a commercial airliner didn't crash into the Pentagon. I don't agree with these theories, but we all know what Voltaire said; 'I don't agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it'.
I'd further point out that this article has a contradiction within it. In the beginning of the article, it claims that 'she told them (students) in class that The Apollo Moon landing was an elaborate hoax filmed in Area 51'. But later, it goes on to change the reality; 'Gillon told them she believed the lunar landing was filmed in Area 51.' If you can't see a vital importance between these two, think about this example; 'she told them that God exists' and 'she told them that she believed God exists.' In the former she talks her belief as a matter of fact, while in the latter she talks her belief as her belief. I don't see anything but positive in a teacher explaining her unconventional view to students as her belief and to challenge them to be critical and make up their own mind.
If you think about it carefully, it is a scary thing; a teacher is accused when s/he voices opinions different from an official/majority view. How about a teacher who says the Kennedy wasn't assassinated solely by Oswald? And a teacher who tells a student that he believes Bush knew about 9/11 beforehand? Is it just to say that he doesn't have the right to say so just because it contradicts against the US government's point of view? A teacher who passionately teaches the way how the corporate-owned commercial media and its advertisers are brainwashing us into believing that capitalism is the only viable option in our society has the power to radically challenge student's conception of the society, the most valuable gift a teacher can ever give to students. Shall she be investigated and told to shut up? If it happens it is called censorship, or suppression of academic freedom and the freedom of speech.
Probably, it is fairly reasonable to say that a mainstream theory should be the one that's mainly taught in classrooms. But usually, there isn't a single, absolute, indisputable Reality, especially in social sciences and humanities. Learning is not about memorising 'facts' which others deemed them to be truthful. Learning is about developing an ability and practice to analyse and discern what are facts and realities, among multiple of views presented. In other words, leaning is about questioning everything. And that is for what schools should exist. If you just want to learn the established, conventional view, read a textbook at home. Schools ought to be a place of enlightenment.
Finally, an overwhelming number of ratings and comments on the ratemyteachers.com website expresses support, admiration and love for Ms Gillon. The comment the Herald chose seems to be fair and balanced, but what the Herald didn't report was the absolute majority of exceptionally positive comments like 'Best teacher at TGS', 'one of the best teacher in the world', 'she inspired me to become a political leader!', 'Gets the entire class discussing the topic with people's own opinions', and 'I learned so much in her class. I'm gutted im in the other history class this year', and instead they singled out the comment referring to her 'conspiracy theories', to quote in the article. I also note that almost all comments after the Herald article was published criticise the inaccuracy of the article. She never denied the Holocaust, several commenters wrote, and asked 'What's this nonsense in the paper?? Totally false and I hope she sues!'.
Where's the truth and the reality?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)