Ryssland är inte direkt känt för att värna om mänskliga rättigheter. Sydsvenskan och andra tidningar rapporterade igår om det omdiskuterade lagförslaget att förbjuda "propaganda för homosexualitet". Positiva uttalanden om homosexualitet (vad betyder det? : antagligen: vad som helst) ska alltså kriminaliseras och beläggas med böter, i synnerhet om uttalandet görs av en tjänsteman. Förslaget har nu tydligen godkänts av St Petersburgs stadsfullmäktige - med rösterna 31 mot 6. Tänk: 31 mot 6. Det är tydliga besked, får man säga. Liknande lagar gäller i flera andra provinser.
Ur ett finlandsperspektiv misstänker jag att en fåntratt och vaghetsmaestro som vår nuvarande president just inte kommer att ta upp sådana här saker till diskussion på stadsbesök (en uppgift som tycks vara en kontemporär presidents huvudsyssla). Jag har starka misstankar om att våran Niinistö hellre talar exportindustri och affärssamarbeten än tar upp "känsliga" frågor om mänskliga rättigheter. Kanske är det just ur det där businessperspektivet som frågor av en sådan rang blir "känsliga". Tänk på hur finska besök i Kina brukar skildras. Hoppets röst i mig säger att det MÅSTE finnas andra sätt att tala om mänskliga rättigheter än känsligt hysch-hysch när kamerorna slocknat eller imperialistisk skenbar "omsorg om era kvinnor" - det är naturligtvis "komplexa saker", vill någon säga, fast det är den fråga i världen som borde vara MINST komplex. Jag frestas ibland av tanken att mänskliga rättigheter som diskurs är dömd, att det blir så abstrakt. Att tänka på: i vilka slags sammanhang förvandlas talet om ovillkorliga skyldigheter och rättigheter till abstrakt babbel politiker och jurister emellan? "Människor får inte behandlas så". Det krävs ett specifikt (och ruttet) sammanhang för att en dylik utsaga ska bli abstrakt.
Showing posts with label homophobia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label homophobia. Show all posts
9 February 2012
28 October 2007
the brown envelope
Playboy magazine is probably delivered to creep-subscribers safely and comfortably packaged in a brown envelope. But the same possibity is offered by Z-lehti, to my knowledge Finland's only paper dedicated to queer culture.
If your neighbor would know...
If your neighbor would know...
18 October 2007
Conservapedia
Conservatives dissatisfied with the "liberal bias" of Wikipedia have joined hands and created Conservapedia, an effort to get the facts straight by contributing with a neutral point of view in the world of dictionary knowledge. Unsurprisingly, the logo of Conservapedia is the American flag. Already this gives a hint of how "neutral" Conservapedia is. (What symbol would you choose so as to induce a conviction ín the reader of your neutrality?) The name itself, Conservapedia, is a hint in the same direction. Perhaps they are alluding to a need to preserve the eternal truths?
I checked the entry on homosexuality (just had to):
http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality
Just as I expected, Conservapedia relates homosexuality to Biblical condemnation, diseases, mental illness, bad parenting and a thousand scandals. Conservapedia mentions virtually all "scientists" who in some way or other have set out to prove the evil nature of the "homosexual lifestyle".
The scary thing when reading this kind of stuff is that it is hard not to react by being slightly amused. "Oh, the American Conservatives, how silly. Morans!" But of course it is more serious than that. That this kind of thing actually exists and that people are deluded enough to maintain this as being "a neutral point of view".
I don't want to say that the debate over neutrality is very illuminating as such. The worst thing with Conservapedia is not that it is not neutral. It is the evil intentions expressed that make it scary. "Proving" that "we" are quite right in oppressing homosexuals "and people like that". But of course, the Conservapedia people would be totally oblivious - or they would seem to be - of why anyone would talk about "oppression" here. (As a side note: Conservapedia has no entry for "oppression", but Wikipedia does)
But debates over neutrality tend to shed some light on how much we can swallow when something is invoked as an instance of "scientific facts" or "a neutral point of view". But this, of course, does not show that neutrality is a mere idiosyncratic construct. This is a misuse of neutrality. (Think about how we talk about manipulation)
From the entry on "evil": "The fight against evil can be radical, even violent, but on a person to person level, often the most successful tactic is admonition."
I checked the entry on homosexuality (just had to):
http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality
Just as I expected, Conservapedia relates homosexuality to Biblical condemnation, diseases, mental illness, bad parenting and a thousand scandals. Conservapedia mentions virtually all "scientists" who in some way or other have set out to prove the evil nature of the "homosexual lifestyle".
The scary thing when reading this kind of stuff is that it is hard not to react by being slightly amused. "Oh, the American Conservatives, how silly. Morans!" But of course it is more serious than that. That this kind of thing actually exists and that people are deluded enough to maintain this as being "a neutral point of view".
I don't want to say that the debate over neutrality is very illuminating as such. The worst thing with Conservapedia is not that it is not neutral. It is the evil intentions expressed that make it scary. "Proving" that "we" are quite right in oppressing homosexuals "and people like that". But of course, the Conservapedia people would be totally oblivious - or they would seem to be - of why anyone would talk about "oppression" here. (As a side note: Conservapedia has no entry for "oppression", but Wikipedia does)
But debates over neutrality tend to shed some light on how much we can swallow when something is invoked as an instance of "scientific facts" or "a neutral point of view". But this, of course, does not show that neutrality is a mere idiosyncratic construct. This is a misuse of neutrality. (Think about how we talk about manipulation)
From the entry on "evil": "The fight against evil can be radical, even violent, but on a person to person level, often the most successful tactic is admonition."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)