Archive of August 2009
Australia defends Aborigines policy
The first thing I’d like to point out is that I find this headline really irksome. “Australia” does not defend its policy, thanks. Australia’s federal government defends its policy. Australia is not its government. Australia is a millions-strong group of people, and no one person or entity could possibly claim to represent all of these people. I belong to Australia just as much as any politician, but I do not defend this policy. It irritates me when people imply that terrible policies have the support of every person in the country. It gives innocent people a bad name.
Even though I find the equation of “Australia” with its government extremely annoying, that doesn’t mean I will or should dismiss this article. “A UN expert”, James Anaya, has accused the Australian government of racism and of neglecting its international obligations to protecting human rights. Why? Because that’s it’s true; they did exactly that. In June 2007, the federal government suspended the Racial Discrimination Act so they could impose an “intervention” on remote communities in the Northern Territory. This action was a response to the Little Children are Sacred inquiry, which found that child abuse was rampant in such communities. Yes, this finding was alarming and upsetting, but the government’s response must be considered equally alarming.
This is what I wrote about the intervention in November 2007, days before the election which saw the Howard government lose office: Read More »
Mali women’s rights bill blocked
I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that the Malian president has capitulated on this issue. It must be hard to attempt to give people their rights in the face of intense opposition from selfish people who insist that just because they don’t want their rights, no one else should be allowed to have any, either.
Still, I don’t like it. I wrote in my first entry on this issue about why these protests irritate me, so I don’t think it’s necessary to repeat myself. I just wanted to point this out, since I find it highly disconcerting that people feel it’s okay to control what others do with their lives, and even more disconcerting that they win. Honestly, if someone isn’t about to harm anyone else, they should be allowed to behave more or less as they wish. At least, I see no reason why not.
Mali protest against women’s law
The government of Mali passed a law giving women more rights in marriage (among other things). Tens of thousands of Malians protested against this new law. When the article appeared in my feed reader, I thought that meant tens of thousands of Malian men would be protesting against this law. Not so! Women are complaining as well! From the article:
“We have to stick to the Koran,” Ms Dembele told the BBC’s Focus on Africa programme. “A man must protect his wife, a wife must obey her husband.”
“It’s a tiny minority of women here that wants this new law - the intellectuals. The poor and illiterate women of this country - the real Muslims - are against it,” she added.
Okay, to me the appropriate response seems pretty clear. IF YOU DON’T WANT YOUR RIGHTS, DON’T USE THEM. You can mindlessly obey your husband without forcing everyone else in the country to do the same thing as you! You don’t have to forcibly deprive “the intellectuals” of their rights just because you don’t want them! I mean, rights aren’t exactly the sole influence on behaviour. Just because you have the right to do something doesn’t mean you have to. Then it wouldn’t be a right, it’d be an obligation. This law is about rights.
To be honest, I also don’t understand the argument that illiterate women are somehow going to know what the Qu’ran says better than “intellectuals”. Umm, which group can read? Which group is more likely to be able to read Arabic — hence the Qu’ran — if one of the groups can’t even read?!
Even more honestly, even if the Qu’ran does say something about mindless obedience being important, I’d think that would only be applicable to women who care about that part. Regardless of what the Qu’ran dictates, surely, ultimately, the decision about the extent to which an individual wants to follow a religion’s guidelines rests with that individual. Maybe I just don’t get it, because the idea that God could inspire someone to write a book in His Exact Words seems incomprehensible to me. If someone believes that a book is genuinely infallible and divine in its wisdoms, perhaps it makes sense to them that they should force everyone else to obey. But it doesn’t make sense to me! To me, if a guideline seems hideously cruel and unjust and oppressive, it’s not because God knows better than mere mortals, it’s because the guideline is hideously cruel and unjust and oppressive! You can volunteer to be oppressed yourself — that’s your choice — but you can’t make that choice on the behalf of other people! It’s not your choice to make!
In summary, this protest really seems absurd to me. Do what you want without trying to force others to do the same thing, people.
Science ponders “zombie attack”
Researchers at the University of Ottawa have come to the following useful conclusion:
If zombies actually existed, an attack by them would lead to the collapse of civilisation unless dealt with quickly and aggressively.
It really amuses me that a study was actually conducted into this, okay. How did these researchers come up with the idea to research this? Were they all sitting around their homes at night, watching zombie movie after zombie movie, and despairing at the characters’ inability to fight the zombies effectively? Did this cause them to wonder, “How could we fight zombies better?”
Of course, I’ve just been studying the philosophy of science as part of my Philosophy class, and it doesn’t seem to me that this research is particularly scientific (at least, not according to Popper, whose theory of falsification seems — in general, if not completely — reasonable to me). A study into the best way to fight off a zombie invasion is not going to be very falsifiable. You know why? Because zombies don’t exist! You could say anything was a good way to fight zombies, and since no way can ever be tested without actual zombies to test it on, falsification is impossible.
I posted this link on Facebook, and one of my Philosophy classmates responded with something along the lines of, “This research is definitely falsifiable, and is in fact false. This is a TERRIBLE way to fight zombies! If we do this, EVERYONE IS GOING TO DIE!!”
I asked what he was talking about.
He replied, “Zombies exist, and society is probably doomed anyway because no one bothers to prepare for zombie invasions. I’m angry that THIS is the research that’s been published, because it’s COMPLETELY WRONG! Those people should have consulted ME before publishing such a terrible plan!”
I pointed out to him that zombies don’t exist, but he disagreed and said there was evidence to prove otherwise. “What kind of evidence?” I asked. “Unreliable evidence? I mean, I could say that I got abducted by a UFO right now, but that doesn’t make it true. What kind of evidence?”
“Evidential evidence!”
“That means ‘unreliable evidence’, doesn’t it?”
So far, he has not produced one iota of satisfactory evidence to the effect that zombies actually exist. Much less that he has an effective plan for dealing with the “inevitable” invasion, nor that the Canadians have the wrong idea! I suggested that perhaps he might like to have a meeting with the Canadians so they can discuss the appropriate responses to zombies invasions together. To this he said something along the lines of, “Maybe I should. Those Canadians clearly need someone to ask what the hell they’re doing.”
I apologise in advance to the University of Ottawa if they get a crazy guy on their doorstep arguing about the best way to fight off zombie invasions.