![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
( Wanna find out? )
Jul. 9th, 2004
From Patrick Martin's article "A holy city carves out its own path" from The Globe and Mail, on one Iraqi Shi'ite leader's vision of Iraq's future:
The problem with Mr. Jabir's argument is that, over the past several centuries, the West has moved away from the establishment of Christian religious codes as active elements of secular law. The overturn of sodomy laws in the past generation is but one example. Other examples from the past two centuries include the disestablishment of state churches, the enfranchisement of members of religious minorities as full citizens, the elimination of censorship based on religious orthodoxies' principles, and the growth of individualism.
The problem with Mr. Jabir's principles, insofar as Iraq's future freedom or lack thereof is concerned, is that they don't allow people to opt out. I wrote about this in March on Bonoboland, noting how Iraqi traditionalists do not allow women to move outside of their prescribed social roles, or allow people who don't accept Koranic stipulations on private morality to do as they please in private.
Western liberalism, and Western freedoms, emerged only after the claims of religious orthodoxies to an exclusive dominance of the public sphere were defeated. There is, for instance, a positive correlation between the 17th century Dutch Republic's rejection of a single religious orthodoxy for all (at least by the standards of the time) and its political and cultural freedoms. Certainly, the Dutch Republic was more free than the neighbouring Spanish Netherlands. It's very difficult indeed to combine the establishment of an exclusive and dominant religious orthodoxy with real personal freedom.
What would Mr. Jabir's vision of Iraq's future mean for Iraq? For starters, that it wouldn't be free--I doubt that he'd allow Muslims to listen to Western music, drink alcohol, and have mixed-gender gatherings in private. I'm also skeptical that he'd allow members of non-Muslim populations--Iraq's considerable Christian minority, for instance--to violate Islamic law whether in public or in private, since he seems to believe that Islamic behaviour is a prerequisite for public order.
What would this post-Saddam Iraq mean for the wider world? Sadly, not much else apart from the creation of yet another religious tyranny, whether explicitly so like Iran or Saudi Arabia or more quietly like most of the rest of the Arab world. Iraq will not become a beacon of liberty, as the proponents of the 2003 invasion pretended it would become automatically and as it could have been given better planning; Iraq will just become another reactionary Arab dictatorship, notable for its tormented political past and its poor oil-exporting present. Which is a shame, but given the United States' disengagement from social reform and any kind of constructive presence in Iraq, what can be done?
What kind of Iraq does Mr. Jabir foresee?
"First of all," he says, "one that is independent, of all outside interests." His comment is not only a rebuke of the U.S. presence in Iraq, but also a slap at some other Shia groups that spent the Hussein years in Iran and may be beholden to Tehran.
Second, his Iraq would be fully democratic, not sectarian, with seats or ministries set aside for each religious community. "That way lies the seeds of separation," he said.
Finally, it must be free, "but the freedom as we understand it as Muslims." By this, he means that there should be freedom of opinion and belief, "but not a freedom that crosses the border of what is right."
He explained: "Islam would define the border. If something is not forbidden, then people are free to enjoy it. But if it is haram [forbidden] then they must not." By forbidden, he includes such acts as listening to Western music, drinking alcohol and the mixing of the sexes -- none of which happens in Najaf today.
Mr. Jabir does not understand why such prohibitions are viewed with suspicion in the West. After all, he noted, the West also bans many acts of dangerous behaviour.
"You think Islam is all about terrorism, but we all follow the holy books," he said. "What is the difference between your Bible and our holy Koran?"
The problem with Mr. Jabir's argument is that, over the past several centuries, the West has moved away from the establishment of Christian religious codes as active elements of secular law. The overturn of sodomy laws in the past generation is but one example. Other examples from the past two centuries include the disestablishment of state churches, the enfranchisement of members of religious minorities as full citizens, the elimination of censorship based on religious orthodoxies' principles, and the growth of individualism.
The problem with Mr. Jabir's principles, insofar as Iraq's future freedom or lack thereof is concerned, is that they don't allow people to opt out. I wrote about this in March on Bonoboland, noting how Iraqi traditionalists do not allow women to move outside of their prescribed social roles, or allow people who don't accept Koranic stipulations on private morality to do as they please in private.
Western liberalism, and Western freedoms, emerged only after the claims of religious orthodoxies to an exclusive dominance of the public sphere were defeated. There is, for instance, a positive correlation between the 17th century Dutch Republic's rejection of a single religious orthodoxy for all (at least by the standards of the time) and its political and cultural freedoms. Certainly, the Dutch Republic was more free than the neighbouring Spanish Netherlands. It's very difficult indeed to combine the establishment of an exclusive and dominant religious orthodoxy with real personal freedom.
What would Mr. Jabir's vision of Iraq's future mean for Iraq? For starters, that it wouldn't be free--I doubt that he'd allow Muslims to listen to Western music, drink alcohol, and have mixed-gender gatherings in private. I'm also skeptical that he'd allow members of non-Muslim populations--Iraq's considerable Christian minority, for instance--to violate Islamic law whether in public or in private, since he seems to believe that Islamic behaviour is a prerequisite for public order.
What would this post-Saddam Iraq mean for the wider world? Sadly, not much else apart from the creation of yet another religious tyranny, whether explicitly so like Iran or Saudi Arabia or more quietly like most of the rest of the Arab world. Iraq will not become a beacon of liberty, as the proponents of the 2003 invasion pretended it would become automatically and as it could have been given better planning; Iraq will just become another reactionary Arab dictatorship, notable for its tormented political past and its poor oil-exporting present. Which is a shame, but given the United States' disengagement from social reform and any kind of constructive presence in Iraq, what can be done?
By Alan Travis, the article "Flow of jobseekers from eastern Europe dwindles" from The Guardian:
Well. One can hope that Britain will be able to endure this Polish-Lithuanian invasion.
The number of people from the EU's new east European member countries coming to Britain to work has already peaked, according to the first official figures published yesterday.
Data for the first two months since enlargement of the EU on May 1 shows that 24,000 people signed up with the government's worker registration scheme.
The immigration minister, Des Browne, said just over 8,000 of them appeared to be new arrivals. At least 14,400 were in the country before May 1 and had taken the opportunity to "regularise" their position.
Figures for the last two weeks in June are 25% below those for late May, suggesting that the number of people registering has already peaked.
The Guardian revealed yesterday that new migrants from Poland were leaving Britain in droves, with about 8,000 returning home since May 1 after being confronted with low-paid jobs, high living costs and Polish criminal gangs attempting to steal their passports and savings.
Home Office data shows that those who have registered are overwhelmingly young and single.
Most are from Poland (59%), followed by Lithuania (17%) and Slovakia (8%). They work predominantly in the hospitality and catering, administration and management and farming industries.
[. . .]
The Office for National Statistics said the number of people from the EU's eight new east European member countries coming to Britain had risen 25% from 79,000 in May 2003 to 99,000 this year, but that figure included tourists and students.
Well. One can hope that Britain will be able to endure this Polish-Lithuanian invasion.
[NON BLOG] Living With Cats, First Note
Jul. 9th, 2004 04:14 pmI live in a nice house in Toronto's Portuguese Village. It's a nice house, in good stead, with a back patio and a front yard filled entirely with rose bushes. I share the house with six other people, including the landlord, and with a total of--I believe; the number apparently varies--six cats. I've never lived with cats before. Certainly I've seen cats, and my mother's relatives have cats of their own, but I've never had any very sustained exposure to cats. I've certainly never lived with cats. But, here I am.
It's unsurprising that I'm allergic to cats, since I'm allergic to quite a few things. I had the worst time on my first day at the house, when my tongue broke out into little red bumps and I began getting hives on my exposed arms. Things are much better now, since I've cleaned my room of cat fur and have apparently become somewhat acclimated. It's nice to know that I probably won't die of respiratory failure.
I'm still processing the feline experience, but the thing that strikes me about cats compared to dogs--at least, compared to my family's late and dearly-departed pet dog Lady back on PEI--is the degree to which cats are independent-minded. Cats have a very active and sometimes contradictory intelligence all their own. They seem to exist quite autonomously--from what, I'm not certain, but they do.
Perhaps this will trigger periodic bouts of catblogging. Who knows?
It's unsurprising that I'm allergic to cats, since I'm allergic to quite a few things. I had the worst time on my first day at the house, when my tongue broke out into little red bumps and I began getting hives on my exposed arms. Things are much better now, since I've cleaned my room of cat fur and have apparently become somewhat acclimated. It's nice to know that I probably won't die of respiratory failure.
I'm still processing the feline experience, but the thing that strikes me about cats compared to dogs--at least, compared to my family's late and dearly-departed pet dog Lady back on PEI--is the degree to which cats are independent-minded. Cats have a very active and sometimes contradictory intelligence all their own. They seem to exist quite autonomously--from what, I'm not certain, but they do.
Perhaps this will trigger periodic bouts of catblogging. Who knows?