We still have a long way to go but it might get easier for the next one and the next one

This last week in Australia a sitting Prime Minister was ousted by their own party. Again.

Thief! - Pencil on Paper 2010

For a second time in a little over 3 years the Labor Party rolled a sitting PM and their own leader. An impressive effort when you think about it.

Whether relevant to the Labor caucus member's own personal decision or not the PM they ousted this time was a woman. The main reason for it, which is supported by the facts, is that to go to the election with Gillard as the sitting PM and as Labor leader would result in political suicide for the Australian Labor Party. Gillard had lost the support of the electorate and Labor would emerge from the upcoming election a decimated husk. A long hiatus in opposition to rebuild is what the party needed argued some. The electorate preferred the previously rolled PM, Kevin Rudd. I am bemused by the public popularity of Rudd. He was rolled for good reason, he had lost the support of his colleagues, he'd lost his way dazzled by the position of PM rather than rising to its promise. It was clear to everyone something had to be done about Kevin as Kevin was all about Kevin. Gillard took on what most of her colleagues from both sides of politics would shiver at the prospect of, a political party in turmoil and disunity though they were very happy for her to do so. And, to give her credit she had the courage they lacked to do so.

Gillard became the first woman Prime Minister, bundled into the role following the ejection of a bumbling Kevin Rudd. Gillard then subsequently won at the polls a shaky hold on Government (a minority one) at the next election. It functioned due to Gillard's talent to unify her minority government with 3 independents. Rudd was never going to stand aside gracefully and happily embarked upon causing any and all destabilising interferences he could. He could be excused for some of this but not for behaviour that, due to its persistence, does point to one main reason for why the Gillard Government was never fully accepted as being legitimate. Rudd would not allow the country to move past his own personal pique. He chose to never accept the position he had arguably put himself into in the first place and demands we see him as one who can take responsibility. To me, like some sort of Prince Friedrich Hapnick, there he was in the background blithering around or pouting dramatically. A prickly, sulky destabilising force, which appealed to some obviously, blaming Gillard for his position and not letting anyone forget his version of events.

Knowing this one wonders how reasoned and thinking voters prefer Rudd to Gillard (or worse Abbott to Gillard). Rudd is a known tanty thrower, micro manager, self obsessed and self promoting. No one would accuse him of bringing an appropriate level of rigour and intellect to the high office of PM. Gillard defined in office that she is about the job and getting it done whilst eloquently deflecting what detractors thought of what she wore or whether her body shape complied to an acceptable fashionable standard. She also took on and won debates lesser intellectuals would have crumbled before. The problem for Gillard was the personal and gender related criticism never ceased. And some of the really grubby underhanded muck stuck firm in the mind of the populist voter.

Julia Gillard though was the first woman Prime Minister in Australian, a fact and a matter of history that cannot be taken from her. Many of us though liking such a fact as a shiny piece of political kudos to flash at our fellow democracies took it very much for granted treating it with less than the special care deserved. Gillard competently fielded valid criticism, too deftly and with a Lawyer's (political) manipulative flair she deflected fair criticisms. But so do all competent politicians. She also graciously endured invalid abusive and out of bounds criticism. Through her the government had gotten a few good things done despite the hung parliament, and it unavoidably and avoidably made mistakes. Some implementations were very good, some botched due to a too hasty pressure to perform and some were plainly wrong but persisted with out of a belligerence of Government which can delude those in power they know better than the experts who clearly advised caution and the public who say no that's too far, we did not approve this.

Gillard had failed to perform on some matters to expectation, the nature of the parliament she led made certain progress unattainable. It was were she failed on one matter in particular that confused her real supporters as well as the grass roots electorate. She declined to endorse the gay marriage bill instead she defined the status of marriage as being a union between a man and a woman. We balk at such contradiction from a Labor Leader, a declared Atheist and person of reason. But this wasn't of concern to those who simply would never "warm" to Gillard. She both irritated and elated the electorate - she polarised but also pulled people together. Not simply but especially because of her gender Julia Gillard's government was most precarious as the classic double edged sword scenario of a hung parliament. Leading Government but at the constant mercy of Parliament. To carry the metaphor to its end running government on a such a knife's edge makes for dangerous political territory misstep and off with her head basically.

As Gillard gamely stated, when announcing she'd lost the party ballot to lead the Labor Party to the next election, there were good reasons to explain some of the struggle she'd had in the role as being due to her gender. It might not explain everything but it explained somethings...

"I have been a little bit bemused by those colleagues in the newspapers who have admitted that I have suffered more pressure as a result of my gender than other prime ministers in the past, but then concluded that it had zero affect on my political position or the political position of the Labor Party." 

How dubious an honour to be the leader of the Labor Party, male or female. A comment I make as a Labor voter my entire voting life. 

I happen to think that an element of timing is part of it. I'm grateful for her opportunity it may otherwise have taken much longer to see a Woman Prime Minister. I feel part of something as a consequence and some good must come of it.

Without a clear choice the electorate never "warmed" to Gillard on its own terms and Rudd remains a curiosity for anthropologists perhaps to some day sufficiently explain.

Bite your tongue and trade in your freedom

Freedom II

Three months ago in Jerusalem, Pediatrician Dr Channa Maayan "bit her tongue" when told a male colleague would have to accept for her an award for her publication and work advancing knowledge on hereditary diseases common to Jews. The acting Israeli Health Minister decreed the event would be conducted under strict ultra orthodox conditions. Women and men in the audience, male and female guests were segregated, no women were allowed on stage. 

For a secular democracy such an occurrence lead by a member of parliament is a disaster. The New York Times article goes on to state many have not kept quiet (Dr Maayan would have been unprepared all she could have done is leave) and the backlash internally within Israel is building momentum but will it be able to resist what is a strong and increasingly belligerent religious orthodoxy? Recently in January 2012 at a conference on “Innovations in Gynecology/Obstetrics and Halacha [Jewish law]” all women were banned from speaking and the audience segregated on gender. In addition there are "rules for playing Kosher Music" and a "black list of non-Kosher music" controlled by a religious committee.

These very public examples of ultra orthodox interference in Israeli public and political life demonstrate Israel is a secular democracy under stress from internal religious fundamentalism.

Concessions have been made by successive Israeli governments to either, at worst, simply win votes from this growing community sector or, at best, to demonstrate an altruistic tolerance. Which is not an exclusive Israeli mistake as even in Williamsburg, Brooklyn Hasidic leaders complaining women who ride bikes represent a "safety and religious hazard" were appeased. If mostly as an attempt to be inclusive and tolerant it seems it, appeasement and concession  isn't a success particularly as the examples above demonstrate it requires that  the human rights of others are detrimentally affected. In Israel not only is this ultra-orthodox section of the community becoming more intolerant of its internal neighbors it is doing so whilst ignoring the external equally intolerant religious forces attempting to annihilate them and their fellow countrymen and women. As a community within Israel they are purportedly an overrepresented drain on the social welfare system. Though the women generally do work, amongst males there is high unemployment as they are permitted by their community and their state to focus upon study of the Torah rather than gainful employment, joining the army, learning other skills or pursuing education other than for advancing their religion and knowledge of it. The only productivity of note from the community it seems is it's high birth rate, which, if nothing else changes will only increase the stress on the already stretched social sector a worrisome fact for the future of Israel. 

It begs the question what is wrong with religions where it is the case that for it to be practiced human dignity, freedom and advancement, must be subsumed and suffer reversals? Separation of religion and state is the cornerstone of successful secular democracy. Without it we would be required to weigh all matters in the context of all religious edicts/laws/conventions.

Orthodox Judaism and Islam particularly have problems operating within a secular democratic context, one that separates the Church and State. Each it seems desire or demand they have access to their own religious courts. Each particularly are at pains to control female believers (and those who simply cannot escape) by strictly regulating their conduct within the community confines and outside it. Female believers are 'confined'; in dress, education, work, social connections, marriage, sexual activity and procreation functions, behavior and social position all aspects are controlled and monitored with zeal. It is a zeal supported by the religious texts which focus upon the female as a sexual possession, a commodity as a wife, booty in war or acquisition to trade family reputation or wealth upon(1). Whether we reside by fortune in a secular democracy or not this is profoundly illegitimate to be continued and considered acceptable 'cultural' or religious practice. It is a denial of an individual's right to free-expression, free-association and self-determination. These are human rights abuses so we do not bite our tongues, as these abuses should never be tolerated within any secular democracy.

If freedom is the first casualty of religious rule then soon to follow is dignity, then imagination and finally concept of mind in the Platonic sense. Human nature embraces spirituality in our thoughts, concepts and metaphors (imagination) and we use reason with which to find structure and meaning within our physical world and attempt to understand the unknown. This is what religious law rejects. 

Crazy religious zealots bent on the implementation of religious law have little regard for human advancement and are destroyers of human dignity, just ask the 8 year old Israeli girl harassed and spat upon by Ultra Orthodox male Jews because they found her child's attire religiously offensive. Other women had reported similar treatment for a few years now but the child's report produced the overdue community outcry.

So, perhaps the paragraph above should begin …"If female freedom is the first casualty of religious rule…". 

As the referenced articles demonstrate Ultra Orthodox Jews ban women from public participation, denounce them publicly for religious transgression, and further to this enforce segregation within and without the synagogue. It is the imposition of Halacha or Halakha, Jewish law, upon a society built around secular democratic principles.  Similarly Islam is intent upon its own religious laws taking precedence with a push to introduce Sharia Law into UK family courts. Equitable pluralist secular rule of law, where all rights regardless of gender are weighed, is viewed as inferior if not blasphemous. Males have greater worth than females is what this religious message very loudly declares. 

Remaining silent for fear of backlash or causing offence isn't an option, biting your tongue to demonstrate tolerance of another way when it impinges upon your own rights and freedoms isn't an option. 

Women and men who enjoy freedom and human dignity with equal justice must be outspoken in defense of it, as they are free to do so. 

Notes:

1. Torah (Old Testament) Deuteronomy: 20.10-18; 21.10-13; 25.5-10; 31.17-18…

    Koran: The Merciful 55.46-58, 44.54-56; The Cow 2.223, 2.228; The Believers 23.1-3; The Confederate Tribes

33.49-51

Article Link Sources:

www.theglobeandmail.com

www.nytimes.com

www.bbc.co.uk

http://open.salon.com/blog/judy_mandelbaum

http://news.bbc.co.uk

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion

http://failedmessiah.typepad.com

The Burqa and Nicab - A choice or a suppression?

Arguments abound on the purpose and meaning of the burqa, the voluminous head to toe outer garment, and nicab, the full-face veil, of Islam. Critics of these garments are often derided for a lack of cultural savvy resulting from their uninformed prejudice, or, strangely their "racism" or "sexism". Intrinsic to my protest of these garments is that they contribute nothing toward advancing women's rights (as is the claim) and do more to harm the cause for all women's liberation and self determination and in particular harms efforts to advance the human rights of Islamic women.

The inescapable facts surrounding these garments are that they:
- instil and reinforce a religiously endorsed gender inequality (only women are required to cover their person in such a manner in public, Koran 33:59); and
- reinforce a religiously derived idea which regards women as the sexual possession of men to be a normal part of any social contract that might exist between men and women in Islam (Koran 2:223). Women in Islam are the property of men whom they must obey for fear of physical punishment (Koran 4:34).

The word "Islam" literally translates as "submission". Whether one cares to acknowledge it or not the burqa and nicab are more than a symbolic submission of the female. The female submits before what is arguably the most patriarchal of religions. Where it claims that it protects and elevates, it instead makes the wearer, visibly invisible in order to control and in so doing devalues the gender due to its gender. When the sound of a woman's walk is prohibited (in strict Islamic regimes) and the visibility and presence of women directed to be hidden (Koran 24:31), then any culture, religion or society should weep for it is not in tune to its humanity.

In 2010 I exhibited four new paintings, physically and in video format, illustrating this contradiction that women have choice and are free in Islam and are protected by the burqa or nicab if not elevated by these garments. I intend my paintings challenge the "elevation" and "protection" argument as well as highlight the misconception that the burqa and nicab are somehow a matter of fashion or choice, thus providing the wearer with security and empowerment. Rather, I contend that the evidence suggests they represent symbols of ongoing, antiquated religious and cultural suppression of female sexuality, independence and self-determination.
Baleful Worship - Submission, Isochronos - Metamorphosis with Niqab, Freedom I and Freedom II are a continuation on my general theme of religious protest, this suite of four are remarking on the characteristics of Islam in it's attitudes to women as well as what is expected of its pious followers. Traditionally a key is symbolic of control. However, in Isochronos - Metamorphosis with Niqab, Freedom I and Freedom II, control, independence, time (progress) is illusory. In Freedom II the keys are rendered useless and the subject slowly disintegrates behind her veil. Indeed in three of the works the figure is barely animate and whereas a metamorphosis such as with Isochronos..., normally produces improvement and new life a stasis results.

See the short video on YouTube

My work deliberately attempts to pose what can be challenging questions about life, sex, death, religion, politics and ethics. The thematic arena of my work ranges from human rights to the philosophical. The figure is the pivot and focus for the viewer, the figure is humanity.

The Women (1939)

"The Women" (1939)

A movie review of sorts...

I recently watched this movie for the first time out of surprise I think due to the simple fact I had never before encountered it.

Gorgeous cinematography and costuming is intended by design to please the fashion conscious palette of a particular audience. Perhaps one also seeking relief from more serious matters going on at the time (like WWII)? It contains a soft porn Dalie-esque fashion show, irrationally plonked, in the middle which unlike the rest of the movie is presented in colour for effect. It was meaningless escapism mechanism and a little ludicrous, particularly as it went on forever until, its whole purpose was revealed, to stage a hostile meeting in the changing rooms for the two main protagonists. Enter evil Shop Girl husband thief and jilted especially saintly wife. Following and equally ludicrous there was an exercise class scene which confused me and I lost track of a few chatty characters. I couldn't keep up with the super fast talking. It was all a little too "Lucile Ball".

Not one man enters the frame, hence "The Women", though several "cads", "cowboys" and "poor schmucks" are referenced. The lack of any physical male presence was the not so subtle subtext of the movie. Men may have been subsumed to become merely referenced but they are still immensely important. This device, making men invisible though clashed a bit with how important they were to our women's lives. Though it was a comment on how men are possibly over represented by most cultures, and including in most movies, making them visually absent didn't reduce this emphasis. The viewer does not miss them though strangely. This device may have some believing we are therefore privy to a pure feminine world? Hmmm... as it is utterly filled with obsessions about and surrounding men it is hard to accept this idea has much existence outside fantasy. Though it isn't wrong that female relationships take a firm back seat as a relationship between a couple strengthens, is this also the case for male friendships?

Our "heroine's" lost love was a misguided fellow lead astray by a gold digging "shop girl" from the perfume counter. The movie ends with the idea that a "wife" should forgive her "husband" of all and any unfaithful discretion because after-all he is "only a man", manipulated by an evil woman who desires what her rival already has. Envy is big in this movie. After-all a woman, her standing in the community etc. etc., is only held as a result of the man she is permanently attached to so she must protect him and that alliance. Without it she may as well go to Reno get her divorce and become invisible. Unless she has fallen pregnant to the "cad" first and then all is forgiven immediately! If she is unfortunate not to be suddenly pregnant then she must relinquish her pride because this is all which has been preventing her from forgiving him and saving him from himself! Astonishing. Even for the early part of the 20th century, the main premise of the movie is a bit of a shocker.

So many unruly gender angles, contradiction and dishonesty.

Perhaps I took it all too seriously but I can't dismiss the niggle I felt about the subtext which was heavily reinforced behind all the fluff and drivel.