France wants no burqas

A great democracy Icon has gone

Corazón Aquino died in the Philippines after a long battle with colon cancer. She was the opposition leader who successfully deposed dictator Ferdinand Marcos after a long-fought uprising against the right wing dictator.

Aquino rose to prominence after the assassination in 1983 of her husband, opposition leader Benigno "Ninoy" Aquino Jr. The uprising she led in 1986 brought down the repressive 20-year regime of Ferdinand Marcos and served as an inspiration to nonviolent resistance across the globe, including those that ended communist rule in eastern Europe.

Mrs. Aquino was a perfect example of what a person can do in a lifetime to leave this world a little better place than he/she found it.

President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, who is on an official visit to the United States, remembered Aquino as a "national treasure" who helped lead "a revolution to restore democracy and the rule of law to our nation at a time of great peril.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

France wants no burqas

The President of France, by calling for a ban on clothing that, as he puts it, imprisons women and undermines their dignity. But in this burqa debate the voices of Muslim women are strangely absent.

For many men and women, the burqa, the niqab, or any clothing that covers the whole female body including the face, is a powerful symbol of the oppression and subjugation of Muslim women. It is an obvious reminder of how the Taliban, who required women to wear the burqa, systematically abused the fundamental rights and freedoms of Afghan women, leaving them with the lowest life expectancy in the region and highest rates of maternal death.

To its critics, the burqa has also become a symbol of Islamist radicalism and even terrorism and is increasingly being seen as a threat to efforts to integrate Muslim migrants into British and European society. Video footage apparently showing one of the failed July 21 2005 London bombers wearing a niqab as a disguise has reinforced the notion that the veiling of the face is inherently suspicious and implanted the fear that it may even be a threat to national security.

There's no doubt that religion and tradition can and do have a negative impact on women's rights across the board. According to the World Health Organization, approximately 68,000 women around the world die from unsafe abortions every year. Yet the Catholic Church continues to oppose the legalization that would reduce the number such abortions.

Violence against women is tolerated in the name of tradition all over the world. Women's oppression is universal. Those who want to help address this sorry state of affairs should start not by telling Muslim women how to dress, but by tackling the root causes of this oppression both at home and abroad: discrimination, lack of access to services, and unequal economic opportunities.

A legal ban in Europe on the wearing of the burqa in public life would be just as much a violation of the rights of those women who wish to wear it as is the forcing of the veil on those women who do not wish to wear it in, for example, Iran or Saudi Arabia. Muslim women should have the right to move around dressed as they choose, to make decisions about their lives and religion, whether we understand or support those choices or not.

The argument that "the burqa oppresses all women" and therefore should be banned by the state implies that it is up to the state to regulate and limit a woman's choices about how she expresses her religious belief through her outward appearance. This is an outrageous interference that so far from protecting Muslim women, which is presumably the intention, actually further undermines their ability and their right to choose how to lead their lives and how to present themselves in public.

Human Rights Watch recently conducted research in Germany, where a number of states have banned the wearing of the headscarf, a far less severe form of covering the body, for women teachers.

Fathima, a young teacher, described her choice to wear a headscarf to school: "They should ask our colleagues, directors, school inspectors, the parents, the pupils what kind of person we are. All of them have experienced me and know me so well, that they can attest for sure that I am not oppressed and that I do not wear the headscarf because of oppression."

She argues powerfully that the scarf cannot simply be written off as a symbol of oppression, and that for her wearing the headscarf represents her choice to practice her religion while still participating actively in Germany society.

There is no doubt that many Muslim women are forced to wear the burqa or other forms of veil and are unable to make decisions about the most fundamental aspects of their lives. But there is equally little doubt that many other Muslim women have made a free and informed decision to wear such coverings, and value the space to practice their religion in public. Banning the burqa fundamentally undermines their rights and perhaps most importantly does not provide any meaningful assistance to those women who are coerced and forced to cover their bodies and faces.

Politicians like Sarkozy who claim to stand up for women's rights must look beyond what women wear. Banning the burqa will not make go it away; it will only force the women who wear it, whether by choice or under coercion, to drop out of sight.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brazilian Government to Grant Amnesty to Illegal Aliens

Good news for those of you looking to become Brazilian citizens: last Thursday president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva signed a new law allowing tens of thousands of illegal aliens to become permanent residents of Brazil. According to the president, the law should serve as an example to countries that resort to repatriation and other "unjust immigration policies." It will benefit over 50,000 people who either entered Brazil illegally or overstayed their tourist visas, by helping them become legal residents.

On other news, last Thursday an action was filed on the Supreme Court in favor of the legalization and recognition of gay civil unions on a federal level. The action is based on Constitutional rights, and aims to give homosexual couples the same legal rights of heterosexual couples.

What a stark contrast that is with the United States. Brazil has a similar “Melting Pot” situation with immigrants from all corners of the world, all races and all economic backgrounds. What Brazil has been able to accomplish is to embrace its diversity and to celebrate the differences. That is not to say that they are devoid of racial and social problems; but they are diminished because there is one thing they don’t have: The Tancredos and the Rush Bouncy Bouncy Limbaughs. These assholes have made it a career to debase and reject minorities and keep up their anti-immigration and make the problem worse for everyone in America.

SOURCE: http://www.westernyouth.org/images/stories/tancredo.jpg

What is it that makes some Republicans so terribly vicious? We see the constant bombardment of lies and negative ads straight from the Mr. Rove playbook. Could it be that they became so enraged after the Nixon saga that they have never recuperated?

The Clinton hearings and attempts at impeachment were so obviously a payback for the Nixon forced resignation. Yet, what these assholes don’t realize is that Nixon really violated many laws and was a two faced liar. Clinton on the other hand, had his peccadilloes and it was a matter of privacy, what the fuck do we have to deal with the private lives of our elected officials? That is, unless they are the standard bearers of morality and exemplary behavior, which they are not. These we call hypocrites in our society, holier than thou, preach one thing and do another. Clinton never got up there and gave a speech about being better than anyone else nor did he ever pass judgment on others.

What is amazing is the zeal and enthusiasm with which some of these Republicans went after Clinton. The one that outshone all the others was Ken Star, who is in my opinion a creep and possibly, I think that could very well be a very frustrated closeted homosexual. Where was he during the Sanford, Craig, Ensin, Vitter and Foley debacles? Surely if he is so concerned about the morality of this country he should impart equal judgment to these sinners.

I suppose he is too busy fighting against granting equal rights to LGBT people in California. Sounds just like him, a closeted homosexual would be twice as homophobic because “real men” are not threatened by gays, on the contrary, they are most accommodating because their masculinity is not in question and the more gays there are the less competition they have. Besides, the real straight dude enjoys it when he is looked at and he relishes being admired for his masculinity. I think only those with issues and insecurities tend to be homophobic.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The eyes always have it