To:Youth For Palestine - Netherlands
Amsterdam
August 31, 2014
I was in Berlin the day before the World Cup final and found myself close to a demonstration of 2~3,000 pro-Palestinian demonstraters marching down the street (towards the US embassy). They had a few catchy rallying cries, in German, and they were actually thought-provoking. I even imagined joining their ranks as it is a worthy cause, despite the presence of a few black flags with Arabic writing (Isis has no monopoly on that symbol), and when asked to stop and talk with the police they complied without fuss. It seemed like a beautiful expression of democracy, unity and cooperation. Asked by the police to turn back as the road was blocked, they turned without incident.
Perhaps because of the ralliers' lack of German fluency, or a lack of agreement with the other chants, I noticed that one chant roused more voices and was screamed (screamed!) with vigour and aggression nothing else had matched, at least three times as many voices: The Takbir. At that moment all desire to empathise with the demonstrators evaporated and I felt anguish. I felt I would never be welcome, no matter how passionately I support the cause, and decided to leave.
I live next to the Blauwe Moskee in Slotervaart, Amsterdam and have enjoyed many a night in the last five years being sung to sleep by those beautiful words and other prayers as my neighbours come together for Iftar. Ramadan being in summer these last few years, I gladly leave my balcony door wide open to let the song in as I drift off. It brings this kaffir to a calm, pleasant place before I slumber.
Those five syllables were delivered by the demonstrators more as a threat than a unifying voice or call to morality as I believe they were first intended (correct me if I am wrong). It sickened me. It reminded me of TV images of people dancing in the streets after the towers fell. It was delivered alongside the Holocause Museum which, ten minutes earlier, had moved me to tears - that alone was disrespectful, but it changed the atmosphere from jubilant defiance to aggression. I realise this undercurrent of religion will be present at any demonstration of the kind, and it makes me so very sad.
It is the reason I won't be joining the demonstration in Dam Square on 3 August 2014, no matter how badly I want the Palestinians to break free of their oppressors, and for the world (but especially the USA) to recognise this South African's opinion that Israel perpetuates a modern Apartheid system - not because it is my opinion, but because it is so.
This is not the way...
Thursday, 31 July 2014
Friday, 27 June 2014
In Defense of Soccer
Ann Coulter recently posted a rather cynical analysis of "soccer", as it is known in the United States, at the Clarion Ledger. I'll be referring it to football throughout this post, since that is for better or worse it's actual name. Full disclosure: I am not actually a fan of football. I do however
appreciate it is an almost incomprehensibly big influence in the world
and am familiar enough with the phenomenon to reject Ms Coulter's points on their face without
terribly much more research.
As someone living outside the United States I found her post to be simultaneously laughable and arrogant, starting with the headline:
Then there's the whopper: there are no heroes in football.
While Tebow, Vick and Brady might be household names to millions (perhaps hundreds of millions if I'm fair), Pele, Maradona, Beckham, Ronaldo and Zidane are household names for billions. To claim that football has no heroes is laughable.
Here's the most important point: North-American game leagues (NFL, NHL and NBA in particular) are probably the most un-American products one can imagine. The franchise system looks closer to a centrally-planned economy than capitalism, and here's why: In the franchise system, there are a fixed number of teams at the top level. This hardly ever changes, and there is no merit: The only way a city, region or town can get a team into the league is to buy an existing slot, which can only happen if the central politburo approves it.
Association Football clubs and leagues the world over are meritocracies. While slow it is technically possible for talented players, coaches and manager to found a new team in a town and join the local association. Through hard work, success, expansion, planning and patience that team can rise to the next level, and the next, each time advancing on their record, not their money or privileged history. The franchise system looks positively feudal by comparison.
Every year in football leagues around the world, teams battle to retain their place in the league they play, press forward for advancement or find themselves bested by their peers, relegated to the lesser leagues. It's emotional stuff and the fierce loyalty these teams command in their supporters is outright shocking at times, lethal at the worst. This is one of the reasons football is distasteful to me, but it is undeniably part of the fabric of life in places Ms Coulter is unlikely to be able to spell.
Then there's the cup. the Football Association Cup (FA Cup) in the United Kingdom is, for me, the archetype. It has been bringing teams from all levels of professional, semi-professional and amateur football in one national knockout tournament for over 140 years - two years less than the entire game of American Football has existed, let alone organised itself. To understand the phrase Giant Killers is to see the true beauty of the format.
I have not even begun to describe the beauty of "The Beautiful Game" since I am seriously underqualified to do so, and leave that to others.
John Oliver's show Last Week Tonight recently eviscerated FIFA, the world governing body of football, and for good reason. There are real problems with football, and most organised sports, but Ms Coulter's arguments address none of these. It is so much easily refutable vacuous drivel.
As someone living outside the United States I found her post to be simultaneously laughable and arrogant, starting with the headline:
Heady stuff. The column has a strong tinge of xenophobia that is common in her writing and public appearances:
- It's all European like the Metric System, so don't trust it.
- It's followed by immigrants, not real 'muricans, so don't think it belongs here
- There's no chance of serious physical injury, so it's not a sport. Personally I don't expect someone to place themselves in harm's way for my amusement, but perhaps that's just personal taste or a sense of ethics.
- There's no chance of personal humiliation. Two words: Own Goal.
Then there's the whopper: there are no heroes in football.
While Tebow, Vick and Brady might be household names to millions (perhaps hundreds of millions if I'm fair), Pele, Maradona, Beckham, Ronaldo and Zidane are household names for billions. To claim that football has no heroes is laughable.
Here's the most important point: North-American game leagues (NFL, NHL and NBA in particular) are probably the most un-American products one can imagine. The franchise system looks closer to a centrally-planned economy than capitalism, and here's why: In the franchise system, there are a fixed number of teams at the top level. This hardly ever changes, and there is no merit: The only way a city, region or town can get a team into the league is to buy an existing slot, which can only happen if the central politburo approves it.
Association Football clubs and leagues the world over are meritocracies. While slow it is technically possible for talented players, coaches and manager to found a new team in a town and join the local association. Through hard work, success, expansion, planning and patience that team can rise to the next level, and the next, each time advancing on their record, not their money or privileged history. The franchise system looks positively feudal by comparison.
Every year in football leagues around the world, teams battle to retain their place in the league they play, press forward for advancement or find themselves bested by their peers, relegated to the lesser leagues. It's emotional stuff and the fierce loyalty these teams command in their supporters is outright shocking at times, lethal at the worst. This is one of the reasons football is distasteful to me, but it is undeniably part of the fabric of life in places Ms Coulter is unlikely to be able to spell.
Then there's the cup. the Football Association Cup (FA Cup) in the United Kingdom is, for me, the archetype. It has been bringing teams from all levels of professional, semi-professional and amateur football in one national knockout tournament for over 140 years - two years less than the entire game of American Football has existed, let alone organised itself. To understand the phrase Giant Killers is to see the true beauty of the format.
I have not even begun to describe the beauty of "The Beautiful Game" since I am seriously underqualified to do so, and leave that to others.
John Oliver's show Last Week Tonight recently eviscerated FIFA, the world governing body of football, and for good reason. There are real problems with football, and most organised sports, but Ms Coulter's arguments address none of these. It is so much easily refutable vacuous drivel.
Thursday, 16 January 2014
Blatant Improper Purpose
I read court rulings. It's weird, but the writing style of judges as
they deliver verdicts has some of the strictest requirement for any kind
of writing, and hardly a page goes by without at least five references
to other rulings, laws or previous definitions - sometimes five of each.
So, when dealing with issues of gravity, emotionally charged matters of conscience and morality, how do you best go about handing down a ruling that some will simply not be able to comprehend because it doesn't fit in their worldview?
Take your time.
Two days ago U.S. Senior District Judge Terence Kern ruled, over the course of 68 legal pages, that couples in Oklahoma, regardless of their individual genders, have a constitutional right to seek marriage licenses. A November 2004 amendment to the Oklahoma State Constitution stating:
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) recently ruled in United States v Windsor that Section 3 of the Defence of Marriage Act (DOMA), explicitly defining marriage as between a man and a woman, violated the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment which confers equal protection of the law on all people in the jurisdiction. This is the same, powerful clause that finally saw the end of segregated schools and other public facilities. What I don't quite understand is, why does this clause exist?
A: "So, we've got these laws..."
B: "Who do they apply to?"
A: "um... well the people I guess."
B: "OK, as long as it's not everyone and at the same time to the same standard that's fine!"
A: "Whoa, that's not right, we'd better put that piece of common sense in the constitution to force government, courts and everyone else to be fair."
Back on topic!
These documents can be dry reading, since by their nature they have to be precise about often imprecise things. Some are a pleasure to read, and this is one of them. The judge litters the footnotes with everyday language and points out little absurdities here and there, while giving a very concise summary of all signifcant actions leading up to that point.
The takeaway, which I am sure will make the (Religious) Right fume is this one line on SCOTUS' Windsor decision and supporting opinion:
"The Windsor Court did not apply the familiar equal protection framework, which requires as to the applicable level of scrutiny and then analyzes the law's justifications. Instead, the Windsor Court based its conclusion on the law's blatant improper purpose and animus." (Italics in original, bold added)
That's legalese for "This is a crock of shit, and always has been, and I didn't even have to smell it or poke it to find out". This had considerable bearing on the federal judge's sway in determining this case which could potentially have been influenced by the previous dismissal of a case known as Baker v Nelson in Minnesota, almost identical in substance to the two couples' complaints (refusal to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple) but handled forty years earlier. The judge even includes criticism of the total omission of reference to Baker in SCOTUS' Windsor ruling despite this being the basis for summary dismissal of pretty much all subsequent complaints, on face. Not often do you see a federal judge handing out tut-tuts to SCOTUS...
He also praises the temerity of the couple and legal team who fought for over a decade to bring an issue through the legal system that would have resulted in the same questions and likely the same verdict as Windsor. Nice to see praise.
I've been looking at some interesting on-line discussions comparing gay marriage to interracial marriage, how the stigmas, doomsday predictions and other negative predictions are broadly the same, and finally saw the concrete reference in this document that I missed having never actually read Windsor (I skipped it as it only allowed all persons to have the marriages recognised federally, a small victory IMHO concerned primarily with taxes and estates).:
"Loving v Virginia 1967 established Virginia's prohibition on interracial marriage violated the equal protection (amendment) and substantive due process clause" of the constitution, and they're right. "A citation to Loving is a disclaimer of enormous proportion.".
This is the beginning of the undoing. While slavery was undone by a specific constitutional amendment (13th) it is the 14th that has held the big stick ever since. It has been used to justify desegregation, deprivation of voting rights, disability and sexual discrimination, and now finally sexual orientation.
I still don't know why a specific line in the constitution needs to tell Americans what pretty much all the developed world knows: Everyone deserves the equal protection of and access to the services of the state. Why wouldn't they? Sure, the amendment has it's civil-war and reconstruction history, but even today... What is wrong with Americans that they even have to cite it, and for blatant stuff no less?
Which legally-illeterate Congress thought this wasn't a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Americans are weird...
So, when dealing with issues of gravity, emotionally charged matters of conscience and morality, how do you best go about handing down a ruling that some will simply not be able to comprehend because it doesn't fit in their worldview?
Take your time.
Two days ago U.S. Senior District Judge Terence Kern ruled, over the course of 68 legal pages, that couples in Oklahoma, regardless of their individual genders, have a constitutional right to seek marriage licenses. A November 2004 amendment to the Oklahoma State Constitution stating:
"Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman."It's a pretty big deal, and dozens of states have similar (if not identical) amendments to their constitutions. A principal concept of the federal legal system in the United States is primacy of the United States constitution - not law or constitutional clause of any state may override the federal constitution.
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) recently ruled in United States v Windsor that Section 3 of the Defence of Marriage Act (DOMA), explicitly defining marriage as between a man and a woman, violated the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment which confers equal protection of the law on all people in the jurisdiction. This is the same, powerful clause that finally saw the end of segregated schools and other public facilities. What I don't quite understand is, why does this clause exist?
A: "So, we've got these laws..."
B: "Who do they apply to?"
A: "um... well the people I guess."
B: "OK, as long as it's not everyone and at the same time to the same standard that's fine!"
A: "Whoa, that's not right, we'd better put that piece of common sense in the constitution to force government, courts and everyone else to be fair."
Back on topic!
These documents can be dry reading, since by their nature they have to be precise about often imprecise things. Some are a pleasure to read, and this is one of them. The judge litters the footnotes with everyday language and points out little absurdities here and there, while giving a very concise summary of all signifcant actions leading up to that point.
The takeaway, which I am sure will make the (Religious) Right fume is this one line on SCOTUS' Windsor decision and supporting opinion:
"The Windsor Court did not apply the familiar equal protection framework, which requires as to the applicable level of scrutiny and then analyzes the law's justifications. Instead, the Windsor Court based its conclusion on the law's blatant improper purpose and animus." (Italics in original, bold added)
That's legalese for "This is a crock of shit, and always has been, and I didn't even have to smell it or poke it to find out". This had considerable bearing on the federal judge's sway in determining this case which could potentially have been influenced by the previous dismissal of a case known as Baker v Nelson in Minnesota, almost identical in substance to the two couples' complaints (refusal to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple) but handled forty years earlier. The judge even includes criticism of the total omission of reference to Baker in SCOTUS' Windsor ruling despite this being the basis for summary dismissal of pretty much all subsequent complaints, on face. Not often do you see a federal judge handing out tut-tuts to SCOTUS...
He also praises the temerity of the couple and legal team who fought for over a decade to bring an issue through the legal system that would have resulted in the same questions and likely the same verdict as Windsor. Nice to see praise.
I've been looking at some interesting on-line discussions comparing gay marriage to interracial marriage, how the stigmas, doomsday predictions and other negative predictions are broadly the same, and finally saw the concrete reference in this document that I missed having never actually read Windsor (I skipped it as it only allowed all persons to have the marriages recognised federally, a small victory IMHO concerned primarily with taxes and estates).:
"Loving v Virginia 1967 established Virginia's prohibition on interracial marriage violated the equal protection (amendment) and substantive due process clause" of the constitution, and they're right. "A citation to Loving is a disclaimer of enormous proportion.".
This is the beginning of the undoing. While slavery was undone by a specific constitutional amendment (13th) it is the 14th that has held the big stick ever since. It has been used to justify desegregation, deprivation of voting rights, disability and sexual discrimination, and now finally sexual orientation.
I still don't know why a specific line in the constitution needs to tell Americans what pretty much all the developed world knows: Everyone deserves the equal protection of and access to the services of the state. Why wouldn't they? Sure, the amendment has it's civil-war and reconstruction history, but even today... What is wrong with Americans that they even have to cite it, and for blatant stuff no less?
Which legally-illeterate Congress thought this wasn't a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Americans are weird...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)