I've moved my blog to wordpress, please go to universityofbrokenglass.wordpress.com
Wednesday, August 14, 2013
Friday, July 9, 2010
Okay, so... According to a new bill proposed in South Africa, women are suppose to be protected from porn. Of course! why didn't I ever realize this before women would never watch porn, they are all nice ladies who would only have sex because they are good wives (please note my sarcastic tone.) This recent attempt to infantilize women as goody-two-shoes who should be mentally virginized (I know it's not a word, but couldn't think of another) is just pissing me off.
Sorry, I'm going on with my rant without the appropriate background info. A draft bill proposing a ban on sexual content on the internet and cellphones was submitted to the South African Department of Home Affairs in May 2010, it was developed by Justice Alliance of South Africa (JASA). The bill is claimed to be in the best interest of women and girls.
Fine, protecting children and all that jazz. But the thing is, women... they don't need to be protected. Yes, that's right, this activist here says that women do not have to be protected! And least of all from porn, given that a fair amount of my friends (those of the female gender) here in South Africa watch more porn than the average male; guess what, they actually enjoy it!
Women are not children, they don't need to be protected, instead their rights need to be respected; those are two very different things. Can't solve the issue of violence against women by just patching it up by protecting the women, rather look at the causes and do something about that. Censoring all pornography? Apart from infuriating my female friends and putting them on withdrawal, what will that do?
...censorship will, more than likely, be used to entrench content in support of patriarchy and stereotypical views of women
- Sally-Jean Shackleton
Secondly, freedom of expression is entrenched in the South African constitution; an African version of the Great Firewall of China doesn't really fit in. Censorship in this light, for reasons of virginilizing women, well... see my friend's quote above...
The Justice Alliance of South Africa's Honoray Director, having made quiet some homophobic comments(link, really need to get laid, properly and good, 'cause obviously they've been doing it wrong...
Shackleton, Sally-Jean. Justifiable protection or entrenching patriarchy? Pornography and the internet in South Africa. APC (2010-7-6). Retrieved 2010-7-9
South Africa Proposing a Ban on Pornography over the Internet, on Mobile Phones. Cellular News (2010-5-28). Retrieved 2010-7-9
Posted by HeJin at 6:59 PM
Monday, June 28, 2010
They call themselves the Ang, which means ‘human being’, yet they are being ogled at like animals in a game reserve - Stephen Corry, Survival International
Everyone is human, but some are less human than others... No matter how much equality and human rights are promoted, it seems that capitalist society - and here I do want to say that it has a western flavour to it - continues to find ways to express their superiority complex... There was slavery, genocide, colonialsm,... and now tourism it seems...
The Jarawa, who call themselves the Ang, are a small tribe of 240 individuals who live on the Andaman islands. For 55,000 years they've lived their lives, relatively untouched by the outside - so-called "developed" - world. Now, a road runs through their forest, and they are being advertised online and offline by travel companies in safari like trips.
Survival International, an NGO dedicated to the rights of indigenous populations, has denounced the trend of companies to offer trips to look at the Jarawa. While the Jarawa and their lands are suppose to be protected by the Protection of Aboriginal Tribes Regulation, 1956, trips are supposedly transit trips to legitimate destinations, on the road tourists are given opportunity to photograph and view the Jarawa. In 2002 a supreme court ruling ordered the road in question shut, however government has ignored this. Now, tourist companies are profiting from using the lands of the Jarawa as a safari park, with the Jarawa as the wild animals to be photographed and watched.
The Jarawa are under threat of disease, as they have no little resistance to illnesses that can be brought in from the outside; isolation as not given them the necessary immunity to many common diseases. They risk to disappear together with so many other indigenous people; now used as a "tourist attraction" in the wild, soon perhaps only in musea.
I have worked as a human rights activist for some time, most time actually, of my life... The ability of mankind to degrade and use others, has left such a bad taste in my mouth, for such a long time; I can barely taste my food anymore...
Human Safari Tours Could Be fatal to the Jarawa Peoples, Intercontinental Cry (2010-6-17). Retrieved 2010-6-28
Human safaris threaten Andaman tribe, Survival International (2010-6-16). Retrieved 2010-6-28
Posted by HeJin at 10:08 PM
Friday, May 7, 2010
Thursdays: an ibyang* intercontinental poem-a-week project
Four Korean Adoptees will contribute a poem every thursday on this new blog, check it out! Oh yeah, and I'm one of the four. Christy namee eriksen, john schill, HeJin (moi ^_^) and kim thompson are located in all corners of the world, from South Africa to South-Korea.
*Ibyang (입양) is the Korean word for adoption
Posted by HeJin at 4:45 PM
Monday, May 3, 2010
In my humble opinion, Belgium has shown it's colors. 136 votes in favour of banning the wearing of burka's in public spaces, 2 votes abstained and 0 votes opposed it.
The ban would concern any clothing that obscures the identity of the wearer in public spaces, security concerns were the main reason quoted by MPs who voted in favour; however, the debates that have been ongoing surrounding the burka and veils in Europa, and also in Belgium, do signal that this specifically is aimed at muslim women. And I say muslim women... While there can be a lot of back and forth on whether veils and the like are limiting Muslim women's emancipation, personally I believe it's a personal choice of each women; I'm not Muslim, and thus can't fully understand the context in which it's worn. Secondly, the discussion, and all our perspectives, are subjective in that we all look at it from our own cultural points of view. Thirdly, by implementing a law that will specifically affect Muslim women's expression of religion (no matter which context they choose to wear this "expression") you're, well, specifically targeting women which is bullshit.
First of all, it's nobody's business what clothing someone wears. Prohibiting specific articles of clothing is a violation of freedom of expression. It's a violation of individual freedoms protected by Belgian, European and international rights laws.
It can be argued that this specifically will target the burka and muslim women. I think it's doubtful that anyone wearing a ski-mask, or people wearing masks at carnaval or other events will be subjected to fines, etc. The latter is nicely covered by the possibility of municipal authorities to grant "exceptions" for such festivities.
I duly hope that the Belgian Senate will display more common sense and dignity, not to mention respect, than the Belgian Chamber of Representatives, by objecting to this law... but my hopes aren't high.
Belgian lawmakers pass burka ban, BBC News (2010-4-30. Retrieved 2010-5-1
Belgian politicians pass veil ban, Al Jazeera (2010-4-28). Retrieved 2010-5-1