Posts Tagged ‘ equality ’

UK full-body scanners set for take down


The use of full-body scanners in airports may be illegal on basis of discrimination and privacy, according to an equality watchdog.

The scanners have been hastily introduced to certain major airports in the UK in an attempt to catch potential terror attacks (like the recent Christmas Day incident) before they happen and stop them, but have now run into a hitch:  the human right to live versus the human right to privacy, dignity and not to be discriminated against. Understandably, many Muslim people are concerned that they will be singled out for the ‘random’ selection process —and they probably would be. This would be wrong for all the obvious reasons, but in addition it is foolish to think that the only people with a beef that could get attention from aeroplane-related terror tactics are [the minority of] Islamic people [who might resort to such measures]. The answer here is simple.

As much as I don’t fancy having my whole body peered at through a scanner (even though almost as much effort has gone into ensuring genital imperceptibility as into the perceptibility of everything else), I would rather that than be blown up mid-air (or anywhere for that matter). With regard to the potential for discriminatory practice, I believe everyone should be scanned. How else is the process supposed to be thorough? Scanning everyone is the only way to ensure that everyone is checked and nobody is discriminated against.

Time consuming, but worth it I think…

Advertisements

The language trap [short version]


The term ‘language trap’ and the concept behind it has been used many times in the last few decades with specific —but not sole— reference to gender and language studies, for example Dale Spender (1980), Deborah Cameron (1985, 1990) and Robin Lakoff (1975, 2004). For the purposes of this evaluation, a language trap shall be taken to mean:

the existence within language of conventions, expectancies and etiquette which serve to maintain the status of women as subservient and inferior to men and to maintain contemporary society’s patriarchal power structure.

The argument here is that, in the way language is used by and about women, they are still the victims of a language trap. Through language, women are objectified, commodified, infantilised and marginalised. Language, like the society it reflects, changes very slowly over time. The work of feminists in the 1970s is on the one hand still being undertaken and on the other hand is being undone. From close analysis, it can be seen that women are still currently the victims of a language trap. This is not to say however that the trap is inescapable and indeed it is evident that change toward equality is underfoot.

The full version of this essay is on the portfolio page, here.

Equality Bill beeswax & Pope Benedict


In response to the BBC News article on Pope Benedict’s attack of the UK government over Equality Bill…

Just a few things,

1) “The taxpayer in this country is going to be faced with a bill of some £20m for the visit of the Pope – a visit in which he has already indicated he will attack equal rights and promote discrimination.”

Fantastic! Who agreed to pay for this hate peddler? Do only Catholics have to pay for this visit?

2) Religious leaders have voiced concern that the Equality Bill could force churches to employ sexually active gay people and transsexuals when hiring staff other than priests or ministers.

The question here is why would actively gay people want to be employed by organisations that don’t agree with them?

3) Peter Tatchell said the Pope’s comments were a “coded attack on the legal rights granted to women and gay people… His ill-informed claim that our equality laws undermine religious freedom suggests that he supports the right of churches to discriminate in accordance with their religious ethos… He seems to be defending discrimination by religious institutions and demanding that they should be above the law.”

But Catholic MP Ann Widdecombe said: “This isn’t a debate about homosexuality, this is a debate about religious freedom.”

Now, if this was coming from a Islāmic voice, how would we feel about that?

4) Widdecombe goes on to say  “If a faith teaches, as major faiths do, that something is wrong, then quite clearly you cannot have somebody who believes that it’s right actually occupying a very senior position… That we have accepted as natural justice for a very long time.”

The counter here is threefold:

the first is as above in point 2)

the second is a disagreement with the ‘inclusive ‘we” of her statement (although it’s acknowledged that this may have been taken out of context)

the third is ‘natural justice’ – what is this natural justice? Darwinism? God’s Law? Accepted for a long time? Hmm, the Luddites spring to mind. That said, faith is faith, you believe or you don’t. Surely there are enough fragments and divisions of the church by now to accommodate all – gays included. Perhaps gays shouldn’t attempt to force the ‘anti-gay’ divisions of the church to accept them and find a division that does and the Pope who is “not getting into party politics” –or the running of a(nother) country?– should do as he claims.

%d bloggers like this: