They have a right to love

 

Some say that the law is reason free from passion. However, the right to pursue our passions has been the most legislated and debated issues in many legal systems around the world. Despite our intrinsic need to fulfill our burning desires and our self-charted destinies, barriers exist on paper that bind us to mediocre and uniform lives.

For instance, the rights to free speech, to an education, and to free enterprise are heavily bound by a net of bureaucracy, of rules and regulations, of minutiae and requirements. And these are basic rights. But how about the most intrinsic right, which is that of identity? Do all men have an equal right to assert who they are and what they believe in?

 The best prototype for this is homosexuality. On this issue, the divisions of religious and secular society run deep, and are reflected in the law. Such are the ironies of democracy that even in nations that espouse “tolerance” and “freedom from discrimination”, the right to marry is curtailed, the right to be a parent is stopped, and the right to be recognized by the law is prohibited. Society reacts in oxymoronic ways named with equally oxymoronic titles, such as the Defense of Marriage Act signed by Bill Clinton in 1996 which actually shuts down legal recognition of marriage from one state to another and by US federal government. Even the Boy Scouts of America, an organization that is supposed to “prepare young people to make ethical  and moral choices”, is currently in a row with Philadelphia over discriminatory screening policies. On the other hand, the bias against gay rights may not be as covert as these. They can be as outright and shamelessly direct as any other advocacy (like this petition), or use political propaganda such as linking homosexual advocacy to communism. Many have invoked religious reasons for opposing gay rights.

On the other hand, the gay and lesbian rights movement (the more politically correct term, though, is the LGBT movement) has reacted strongly to these assaults on their culture. In the long history of the rights movement, there is a sprinkling of successes among failures, including the striking down of anti-sodomy laws, establishment of anti-discrimination laws in the employment setting, the conferment of lesser forms of recognition (which they feel are still partial), domestic benefits, and even adoption rights. The number of same-sex marriage households is growing with the last census showing more than half a million in the United States. The numbers represent the clout of the LGBT community, which is important especially when it comes to setting the electoral agenda of presidential candidates ,who have to walk on eggshells to appeal to both the liberal and conservative commnities. Around the globe, there is a trend of liberalization of same-sex unions ranging from full recognition, to celebration in various media. In fact, these trends of normalization show how legal recognition of homosexuality has become less of a polarizing factor in different societies.

 So, how should state react to this? How should a liberal democracy handle the issue?

 

Of course, one has to consider the premises of the law first. Many countries already have conceded to the need for changes in the treatment of people in different social strata. The recognition of this problem is rooted in the belief that all men are equal, all men deserve equal treatment. Here, we establish the first crucial conclusion: homosexuals are human. As different as you or I may be from a homosexual, they exist in the same sphere of humanity as you and I. From here, it becomes easier to argue that they deserve the same rights as anybody else, including the the right to marry and the right to adopt children.

 

A sociological approach to the argument would have to take into account the considerable opposition that exists against LGBT rights. How can a homosexually tolerant state be democratic when the majority of people oppose fundamental gay rights? In answering this question, we look at historical examples, such as the emancipation and suffrage movements in the past. Even at present, tolerant communities do not experience the “difference” all that much. In fact, it is in intolerant communities that gay hate crimes proliferate. But even these statistics have remained stable over the past decade. Even Charles Howard, a famous gay hate crime victim, would have approved. So, why should the freedom of the minority be oppressed at the behest of the majority? Why should laws repress gays when it is others who have a problem with them and not vice versa? Is there intrinsic harm to being gay anyway (as asserted by Muslims, Catholics, and other “family protectors“)? The only way you’d have to be really affected by a homosexual is if you are one yourself… and that doesn’t augur well for critics. In fact there is a study on homosexual arousal among homophobics. State should exist to protect vulnerable populations. The potential violence of a closed-minded majority should not force governments back into the closet of intolerance.

 

On a personal note, I don’t force everyone to be heterosexual. I don’t force my morals on others. But I can preach them. I stand for tolerance and understanding for this is the only way that dialogue can occur, the only way we can reach out to them.

In the end, we should not fear the homosexual community’s right to love. While some guys fall for girls, other girls like girls, and other guys go crazy over guys. But if you notice, homosexuality is not a psychiatric disorder. Homophobia is.

The relevance of monarchy: Who needs a king?

 As new reports come in on Princess Diana’s inquest, one has to ask what all the fuss is about. Surely, Princess Diana was a highly influential person, whose support for charities was legendary (and continues on), and whose spat with the “Establishment” in the United Kingdom fractured her marriage to Prince Charles. Here then we gain a clue as to her popularity. Being the “People’s Princess”, Princess Diana’s rise to royalty from civilian life was the driving force that gained her her following, her clout in the public eye, with all the attendant consequences. Needless to say, it was this worship of Diana (as well as a drunk chauffeur/security chief) that led to her death.

What is the need for royalty in modern times? Let us discuss one important aspect of the royalty, and that is its political power.

 

There is a spectrum of the political involvement of royalty in the world. Absolute monarchies still exist in Brunei, Saudi Arabia and the Vatican City. In these places, they are considered infallible and their word is carried out as law. Other countries impose legal limitations on royal power in the form of constitutional monarchies, as observed in many European States, the United Kingdom, and Japan. A similarity in these monarchies is their succession by primogeniture, a mechanism that caused the Japanese Imperial Family a recent headache. Because tracing bloodlines is important, a certain status is given to members of the royal family by society in recognition of their closeness in succession to the reigning monarch. Through this, and given the absence of any meaningful opposition to their rule (enough to overthrow them from power), a monarchy is able to perpetuate itself in eternity. Exceptions to this are elected monarchs, such as the Pope, who is elected by the College of Cardinals in the Vatican, in a highly anticipated ceremony, and the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or Paramount ruler (elected by and from the hereditary sultans of each state in Malaysia).

Based on the process of succession, and the resulting longer terms of a monarchy, some argue that this system of rule confers an immunity from politicking and corruption that prevail in more temporary arrangements (such as in elections). As a lasting symbol of the state, there is allegedly less tendency for others to attack the monarchy, avoiding the scandals that tarnish the reputation of a country. As a power beyond the political realm and not requiring political support, the monarchy becomes a neutral and independent arbiter of the people’s interests. It is provides stability during times of political upheaval as permanent holders of power. Being born and trained to rule, monarchs are allegedly reliable and dependable.

Most of the benefits mentioned above do not seem to be applicable in the here and now. For one, most monarchies today are constitutional, a situation that binds the monarchy (in various ways, in different countries) from any meaningful political involvement. In fact, monarchs are largely ceremonial figureheads rather than actual rulers. And when constitutional monarchs do become rulers, they have to embroil themselves in the politics of the day, favoring or disfavoring their prime ministers, and seeking to gain popular support. The arguments above apply more to absolute monarchies. One single but weighty question  for absolute rule is: can we always have an enlightened despot? History argues otherwise. Enlightened despots are rare, and rulers have always been fallible. It is even arguable that with so much subjectivity vested into one person, despite the possible existence of advisers and all, an environment is created that breeds nepotism, cronyism and corruption. (consider case studies in Tonga, and Saudi Arabia) It is no surprise that royal families are extremely rich and decadent, whose funances are even propped up by taxpayer money.

Politically, then, monarchies haven’t proven themselves to be particularly effective. How about their social aspect?

 

Monarchies retain so much social attraction even today because of their socioeconomic disparity with the public. Going around in “elite” social circles, protected by their gilded walls and their towering castles and boasting of a bloodline that goes back hundreds of years, royals enjoy an elevated social status that begets itself. That is, royal families are popular because they are royal. The public seems embroiled in cheap entertainment based on gossip and rumors, and fueled by raunchy intrusions into the royal private life. Sometimes though, that popularity extends beyond the tabloids and the paparazzi. In places that elevate a monarch’s status to that of a deity, monarchs can wield a great deal of influence on social norms and political policies by virtue of their strong public support. Thailand’s multiple coups, such as the one in 2006, have been dependent on royalty for their mandate. Recently, the King of Spain rallied his country against an attack by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez on a former Spanish prime minister (his “Shut up” statement is now a huge ringtone hit)

On the other hand, and here even some royals may agree with me, the constant presence of the public eye on their every move gets to be more annoying. Royals are pressured to conform to what the public view as “royal behavior”, deviance from which is punished severely by the press (remember Prince Harry and his costume?). Scandal after scandal is published on what would otherwise be ordinary news if it weren’t for the regal factor. Social pressure may not even be tolerated by members of the royal family, causing them to cast away their title in favor of a more private life, free from the constraints that burden a prince or a princess.

But here is where Republicans become a little myopic: No one else is listened to more than Royalty. In a modern era where people have become exasperated, even fed up with the reckless and unbounded ghost statements of their political leaders, a monarchy provides the strong voice that unifies everyone. As a bastion of conservatism, the monarchy functions as a barometer by which the public can gauge their actions. As a symbol of the status quo, the monarchy is able to show people where progress is needed and galvanize them into action.

As archaic, fanciful, peculiar and old as it may seem, the concept of monarchy is still relevant today. Acting as a powerful catalyst for social change, having a king may not seem so bad at all.

Rebellion: Is Independence A Lost Hope?

Kosovo is finally having its elections. This brings up an interesting topic on the success of rebellion as a tool for independence. 

The fracturing of Western colonial empires has brought about the emergence of new, independent countries. Usually hard fought with revolutions in their various forms, nations have carved out for themselves their own territory, with their own military, and established their own state. Revolution was the battle cry of the time, and it was radical, and it was beautiful.

 As time passed though, the changing state of nations have made segments of their populations realize the need for further divisions, for new states to emerge. When their requests weren’t heeded by inherently defensive and territorially static governments, they turned to rebellion.

People joining rebellions have various reasons. One is ethnicity. The Kurds of Iraq have asked for an independent Kurdistan (actually, Kurdistan covers several countries). Albanian Kosovars want to be freed from the clutches of Serbia. Muslim Mindanao have asked for a separate state in the Philippines. Despite the fluid definition of “nation”, it seems these movements refuse to be percolated with their fellow citizens. The claim of ethnic differences hearken to deep insecurities held by these groups against the prevailing, “dominant” race or religion. They conjure up feelings of oppression, repression, and discrimination that were the lifeblood of revolutions in the past. They spark rebellion in these countries.

These make us ask two things: First, is rebellion the solution? Second, is independence the solution?

Rebellion comes in different forms, depending on the state of the government’s controlling apparatus. In more controlling states with the capability to enforce that control (such as Russia, China and Singapore), rebellion is merely voiced out in various media, only to be clamped down on by the government. In states without the capability to defend the governing apparatus, armed movements gain control over sections of territory. This is what is seen in Africa’s rebellions in Ethiopia, the Congo, and Uganda, to name a few. The same can be said of Asia’s revolutions such as the Philippines, Nepal, Thailand, Sri Lanka and several others. In countries where the state is not as controlling, but has the potential to be so, rebellions come in the form of a dynamic opposition using available legal means to pursue their interests. Good examples include Canada’s Quebecois independence movement, the USA’s American Indian lobbies, and the now pacified IRA in the United Kingdom.

Using a more practical analysis, it seems that rebellions without the full capacity to win their independence have detrimental effects to their country and to their cause. A resurgent and vengeful government would throw its military might at them, cutting down their numbers, repressing their freedoms, and fueling even more of the discontent and oppressive feelings that sparked rebellion in the first place. But when that government doesn’t have enough of the military muscle to accomplish its crackdown, chronic tit-for-tat battles take place lasting for decades and resulting in more detriments for the population than both the government or the rebels. Africa itself is a model for this, with rebels having the gall to attack UN peacekeepers who are tiptoeing around, reluctant to use force that may aggravate the situation and result in their ejection from the country. Active recruiting of children into the army is also a common occurence, teaching them how to accomplish the killing, the raping, and the pillaging of warfare.

Rebellions that are successful, though, result in the creation of new countries and the establishment of new governments. At this point, we have answered the first question. Rebellion is only a solution if there is enough bite to back its bark.

But this leads us to a more complicated question: Is independence really the solution?

A new government has a multitude of problems. Being a neophyte in governance, the fledgeling state has no credits in National Management 101, and frequently bungles up its job. One thing it doesn’t do well on is the establishment of viable industries. East Timor is an example of a country tied up so much in economic deals that try to please its more powerful trading partners, that it barely has any GNP left to spend on its own development. Bangladesh is wallowing in poverty, as is Pakistan, from which it gained independence. Other Asian countries, though, are proving that it is possible to learn fiscal discipline. South East Asian countries have shown their resilience post-independence, and even post-1997, when a regional economic crisis occured. The Philippines has the best performing currency in Asia this year, and Vietnam is developing at a rate second only to China.

Of course, economics is not the be all and end all. Democratization, which seems to be the byword in governance in this era, is crucial. Governments have to balance the establishment of security and control over their newly acquired territories, with the expectations of the international community and their own citizens as to their rights and freedoms. It is here that the issue becomes prickly. Juntas in different countries (such as in Thailand, Pakistan, Burma/Myanmar) seem reluctant to let go of their newly acquired power. In a time ripe for political opportunism, oppositionists quickly rise to criticize their governments, drunk too on their newly acquired freedoms. A government has to balance all interests, lest they commit the same mistakes the previous government made, and spark new revolutions in unstable times.

These concerns, along with the growing trend toward the promotion of politicoeconomic stability have downplayed the need for independence, and hence, for rebellion. The internationalization of tolerance and the increasing use of the negotiation table by governments have quelled many rebellions by satisfactory deals. The IRA, for instance has laid down its arms in favor of reforms in representation in the United Kingdom. The MNLF has given up secessionism in favor of a measure of autonomy in the southern Philipppines.

Sometimes, the moderation of formerly rebellious groups has sparked a reactionary radicalism, new movements that aspire to “purer ideals” with no compromise or wavering. The infamous kidnapping group, the Abu Sayyaf, is a spawn of the MNLF in the Philippines. In what is arguably a rebellious movement seeking independence, the Palestine Liberation Organization has split into so many factions, moderate and armed, that makes it difficult for others to negotiate with them.

Thus, in the end, there is no real answer as to whether independence is a solution because it all depends on the change that happens. A new government must prove itself able and willing. It must maintain the principles of its revolution. It must conform to internationally-conceded standards of governance. It must quell other rebellions and security threats.

In short, it must be Machiavellian.

Is Saudi Arabia Victimizing a Rape Victim?

 

Rape is always a tragedy. Unconsented and forcibly acquired sex breeds deep psychological wounds in anyone, whether young or old, whether Christian or Muslim, whatever race a person is. It is not surprising then that some countries have imposed stiff penalties for convicted rapists, ranging from several years of imprisonment to death.

 While the accountability of rapists has long been established, questions have arisen as to the role that victims play in the act of rape. It may be politically incorrect to say this, but some cultures maintain that the rape victim may also be to blame for exposing himself/herself to rape, for inducing sexualized feelings in the rapist-to-be, or, in simpler terms, for “asking for it.” I highly doubt that anyone asks to be raped, for that wouldn’t be rape, by definition (although resistance to sex is a fetish for some).

Must the rape victim be held accountable for not providing self-protection?

Let’s analyze accountability first. Accountability is a social precept materialized in the legal system. It is created to achieve justice in the eyes of society. This definition of accountability allows us to accept the differing burdens of proof for rape in various societies (see case studies of the UK, India, and Iran). It also accounts for the gradations in the severity of the punishment meted out to rapists. It is this spectrum of societal reactions to rape that has allowed Saudi Arabia to inflict 200 lashes and apply a six-month prison sentence onto a gang-rape victim. Was this justified in the context of Saudi Arabian perceptions of accountability?

The person in question is a 19-year old woman gang-raped by the companions of a man she met to retrieve some photographs. She was convicted for violating a law that prohibits women from meeting with an unrelated man. The reason for this law is to prevent unfaithfulness among married women, as well as premarital sex for unmarried women. The burden also of sexual inhibition is placed largely on women, who have to dress modestly (understatement?) in order not to induce sexual feelings in men who observe these women.

Saudi Arabian conservatives may feel then that the punishment was justified. Reformists though have cried out for justice. The comparison between the physical punishment and detention of the rape victim and her rapists is something worth noting. Her rapists received a sentence ranging from 2 years to 9 years. This woman, upon appeal, had her own sentence increased to the 200 lashes, from a previous number of 90, for “going to the media”, and “trying to influence the court”.

Considering all of these factors, I feel that Saudi Arabia has aggravated the victimization of this woman. Knowing the intense psychological (and physical) pain that this woman underwent, and considering the life-long discrimination she will face in her community, punishing her and giving relatively light sentences to her rapists is an insult to human dignity. Punishing her for the association with men is punishing the inevitable, and requires obedience to a highly isolationist and disempowering regulation that binds Saudi Arabian women only to the home. Increasing her punishment after “going to the media” for fear of influencing the court’s decisions speaks more of the susceptibility of the judiciary to public pressure than of her obstruction of justice. Which makes us argue: 1) Why shouldn’t the public be able to influence the court, which is acting to preserve social justice anyway?, and 2) Why should the court prevent women from publicizing their plight to the public?

The past events have spat in the face of the reforms of the ruling King to liberate women from the shackles that bind them. When Islamic countries like Malaysia and Indonesia have been able to foster women’s rights without expending religion, we can’t help but wonder: Is patriarchy in other Islamic countries really due to Islam, or due to fear of the empowered woman?

Maybe Saudi Arabians should stand up and challenge the patriarchy. Maybe Muslims should re-examine how they practice Islam, and ask whether it is God who legislates injustice, rather than man. I believe Islam protects the dignity of women. I believe Islam does not disabuse its believers of their humanity.

OPEC sees the light… but is it too late?

 

You tend to get suspicious when oil producers start talking green. But come to think about it, it is a milestone for the Organization of Pretroleum Exporting Countries to recognize the problem and suggest its solution in one blow by endorsing carbon capture technology in their latest draft declaration. This declaration was made amid the achievement of record highs for oil prices around the world, which called into question the ability of the OPEC to control oil prices (as opposed to merely providing propaganda for not stopping their own profits from skyrocketing) which was established before during the 1973 oil crisis.

 

OPEC now joins the ranks of a mish-mash of organizations promoting environmentalism. Initially a distinctly hippie movement, the move to go green is supported, at least in principle, by most people in the world. In the US, for example, 66% believe that something should be done about global warming. Global warming itself is a hotly contested issue, even being denied by some sectors, something I feel is imprudent at this point.

  

There are different schools of thought when it comes to protecting the environment. Some believe that going for renewable energy sources is important (even for kids!). As expected, it is the shift away from lucrative petroleum products that causes the greatest difficulty when it comes to public policy and thus the resistance from usual suspects. Petroleum companies and their oil lobbies spend millions of dollars to protect their interests in legislature, with a good deal of success, even with the World Bank. These companies, worried about consumer backlash on product usage, have launched riveting and provocative information campaigns about their own corporate social responsibility. That doesn’t prevent others from calling their bluff and accusing them of hypocrisy, human rights violations, among others. OPEC countries themselves are crucial to foreign interests, particularly that of the United States, in their reliability in providing for American energy needs. It comes as no surprise when a link is drawn between America’s forays into Middle East security issues and its own economic agenda.

 

Militancy is the tool of choice for other organizations, most notably that of Greenpeace. Using methods bordering (only?) on the violent, Greenpeace’s disregard for laws and surreptitious environmentalism has enraged many from an otherwise dormant civil society and sometimes elicited a rejection of their agenda altogether. Clearly, despite all the publicity, militancy may not be helpful.

We also have a variety of other solutions from an anti-global warming diet  (which blames cows) to promoting a carbon tax. The latter interests me in that there is now a more direct involvement by people on the grassroots in environmental protection, also with concrete benefits in protecting the environment (such as funds for research and development, and taking the strain of industries bearing the brunt of anti-pollution policies). Despite all the efforts since the conception of the environmental movement, and even in the face of its growing momentum in all the nooks and crannies of society, global warming is accelerating. Makes us ask what exactly we are doing wrong. The (alleged) consequences of global warming makes us fear it all the more, from freak storms in Bangladesh to security threats, to economic insecurity in countries rich and poor.

As world leaders rush to Bali to discuss new policies to replace the Kyoto Protocol when it expires in 2012, one is left to contemplate the individual’s role in all this. Personally, I’m left with desperation and fright.

Can one species save a dying earth?

This brings to mind Carl Sagan, and his moving reading from his book, Pale Blue Dot.