Reacting
#202: Over and Under
Starting last night, I think I've listened to at least 7 news broadcasts about 3 key headlines here in Australia. One was about the outrage of Australia over the comments made by a Muslim Mufti likening women dressed in skimpy clothes to uncovered meat. If the cat eats the uncovered meat that is left outside, then it's not the cat's fault but the uncovered meat's fault.
The second one is about the DVD being sold by a group of teenagers in Melbourne who videotaped their torture and rape of a young girl. The issue was whether naming and shaming these teenage boys would be the best thing to do. One group says that's too much of a "punishment" for the boys whose future rehabilitation may be negatively impacted by such an action. Another group says that if they were blase enough to put their names on the DVD they made of such a horrific act, then let the world know who they are and what they've done.
The third one is about Princess Mary being pregnant with her second child.
Hmm.
Let me tackle the Mufti issue first. See, the Muslim leaders in Australia convened last night to decide whether to sack the Mufti because of his irresponsible comments implying that girls who dress skimpily bring it upon themselves to be targets of sexual assault and violence; or to let him stay given that those certain comments from his sermon were taken out of context and misinterpreted by the public. A female leader of the Muslim community here in Australia guested on one of their morning shows declaring that she was appalled by such degrading comments towards women. "Rape is a crime. It's not about how you dress. It's not about lust..." I was actually surprised that no one challenged her on lust being a separate entity from rape.
To illustrate how the public or how the Muslim community felt about the Mufti's comments, the show took a tall, sexy, blonde woman in a short dress to walk through a junction in a Muslim community. Then the "field reporter" (their version of our Bobby Yan or Ryan Agoncillo, probably), asked the Muslims to look at the girl and tell him if they thought she was dressed nicely. The Muslim men smiled and nodded their heads. Wha-? I can't believe it. The network has got to be kidding with that juvenile exercise.
And then there's that huge debate over whether to "name-and-shame" those boys who videotaped their torture of a girl (at one point, one of them actually set fire to the girl's hair.) It's so easy to get lost in all the technicalities sometimes. You have a psychologist saying that doing so would harm the fragile youth and their futures and presto! People forget about the tortured girl and dwell on the fragility of the twisted minds of the people who should have known better that actions have consequences. Evil actions merit punishment.
Then we move on to the debate on what the right punishment is. Is it in the naming and shaming? Is not the legal system adequate to address this? Here's my question, where are the charges against these boys? I personally don't think that the thing they need most now is a fluffy blanket and a thumb to suck on. They have not shown any remorse. Some reports even point to how they've manifested enjoyment of their notoriety. I think what they need is to be struck with fear in the same way they struck fear and inflicted damage physically and mentally on that girl. Do I now call for a society that promotes revenge? No. I call for one that seeks justice.
As I said earlier, it's easy to call everything "gray." Thing is, if people just step back a little bit, maybe we'll all realize that the DVD of the torture is more outrageous than the comments of a Mufti made to his congregation in a non-English language. Maybe we'll see that lust is a possible driver of rape in the same way that a bushfire can be ignited either by an irresponsible smoker who throws his cigarette butt carelessly or a family BBQ gone haywire or a bunch of teenage boys setting fire to the hair of a helpless girl. Maybe we'll see that Princess Mary getting pregnant deserves less airtime than the issues that will define whether this society is capable of distinguishing what is right and what is wrong amidst all the shades it wants to see in between.
Then we'll all know how to react within that sweet spot between over and under.
posted by VivaGlam! at 12:55 PM
7 Comments:
i wouldn't completely agree with the lust leading to rape view. i agree with some quarters that rape is more about power than lust; that since the man perceives himself as superior, he will commit the act regardless of whether the woman is dressed in a mini, a chic dress, or even a burka. of course it's undeniable that lust is a trigger, but it's the "superiority" the perpetrator has that makes the two feelings a disastrous combination.
that being said, the Mufti shouldn't have said that.
10:56 PM
Hi Lee,
As I carefully worded it, "lust is a possible driver of rape." It is not the sole or the ultimate driver. It may be in some cases, it may not be in others. But, I think we all have to admit that there are definitely cases where lust is the trigger for rape.
4:28 PM
ah ok, point taken :)
6:24 PM
still cant get over the rape. setting the girl on fire.
i think the court should be open to look at the permanent damaged rendered upon the victim and not be too kind on the criminals.
11:17 AM
about the mufti's comments. there can be no suggestion that blame be attributed to the girls. leave a piece of meat on the street and any and every animal will take advantage of it. but, why do all men not take advantage of the 'uncovered' woman? it is precisely that difference that distinguishes a reasonable person from a rapist. their action, their responsibility, their guilt and their punishment.
bear in mind that the comments and others are in a background of middle eastern men gang raping women. the rape is often racially motivated. place the comments of the mufti along side the account of the multiple events of rape committed by one Bilal Skaf, for example, and you can only be horrified that religious leaders could do nothing but condemn the actions of such a person (?) Read the detail. it is not as if the dog is walking along the street, smells and notices the meat, and eats it. it is a planned, deliberate, repeated, violent, humiliating, deceitful and vindictive act of terror. not one man waking past, but the conspiracy by a large group. not a rotting carcass, but a living human being.
for the mufti to liken such an event to uncovered meat, is to liken the girls (in some cases, under 18) to meat, rather than a person. is this a fair reflection of the views of Islam? perhaps that is the point.
why do all men not react the same way? part of the answer is that they do not see the girls as meat. the mufti is legitimising that view in this statement.
11:50 AM
acp,
Again, a very intelligent view. Nothing further to add, your honor. :)
djay,
I don't know a lot of the details. I still don't know which side won the debate. The news has faded from the airwaves and has been replaced by Britney's divorce from her wanna-be rapper husband.
9:48 PM
LOL! I still can't over the fact that i wrote "permanent damaged" hahaha.
5:15 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home