Monroe County Fair '09

Just thought I'd mention a few of the things I saw at the Monroe County Fair last night:

* A stand for the Monroe County TEA Party
* The Republican party stand with a sign saying "Say no to socialized medicine"
* A "Christians for Life" stand with models of fœtuses at various stages
* A test your Bible knowledge electronic quiz
* The American Legion giving out stationary with the Pledge of Allegiance on it. Cindy took one that said "Proud to be an American". I opted for one with all the presidents on it (it was up to date).
* Overheard a kid making a (root)beer joke with his grandmother. Her reply was, "If your parents let you do that, they must be more liberal than Obama!"

Consistency

Do people's positions have to be consistent in order for you to take them seriously? Hilary Putnam famously said that that it's better to be right than to have been consistent. That sounds about right, so I guess all you need to do is fess up to the change in belief and explain how your new position is better that your old one.

That's not always easy to do when you are arguing against an opponent. Khadijah Ouararhni-Grech is a good example. In the first reports of her argument with the bus-driver, she responded with indignation at her mask being described as a mask. In her first interview with the Tele she insisted that it wasn't a mask that she was wearing. She stated that she was no different from all the other women on the bus. (To which, I assume the driver would have replied, "They're not wearing masks.")

I figure someone must have sat her down and explained that a niqab is a type of mask, because in her interview with ABC's PM she claims that what she said was, "What's the difference between me wearing this and anyone else wearing like a swine-flu mask or wearing what they chose to wear?" That's not such a bad argument. I doubt there were any wearers of surgical masks on the bus that day but it's quite plausible that the driver would have let them on (after chuckling at their stupidity).

But much worse is the way in which her melodramatic reaction devalues other people's suffering - 'It's almost being like raped of [sic.] your culture. It's like something has been taken away from you.' What exactly has been taken from her? If something were taken, wouldn't that be theft, not rape? Not only is that a ridiculous misuse of the word "rape", it doesn't even make sense of her experience. In the same interview the reporter explains, 'Khadijah Ouararhni-Grech says growing up as a Catholic before converting to Islam has given her a valuable insight into discrimination.' Which is it? She can't feel culturally insulted because it isn't her heritage. Islam is something she chose to embrace. This is a clear cut case of personal preference and any talk of culture only serves to muddy the waters.

Next time someone tells me they don't like my beret, I'm going to cry "rape"!

Differences of Degree vs Differences of Kind

I'm going to argue that a liberal society should generally ignore the motives of people's practices when deciding what to ban. In particular, when deciding what sort of attire to allow in public, the same sorts of standards should be applied whether the requirements are religious or aesthetic. This is in contrast to some places, e.g. France, where symbolism is the primary criterion. (Whether religious symbols should be allowed in government institutions is a different issue.)

The Tele is reporting that a Muslim woman was asked to remove her mask before getting on a bus. I'd like to point out that it is she who raises the issue of race by denying that she's an Arab (i.e. insisting that she's Maltese-Australian). The driver criticises her for something she chooses to do. This is different in kind from the "driving while black" phenomenon in the USA.

She insists that a niqab is not a mask. The Oxford Dictionary begs to differ:

mask, n. -
I. A covering for the face, and related senses.
1. a. A covering worn on or held in front of the face for disguise, esp. one made of velvet, silk, etc., and concealing the whole face or the upper part of it (except the eyes), worn at balls and masques.

My main point is simply that there's a significant difference of degree between a Muslim woman covering her hair and covering her face. We have normal social interactions with people who cover their hair for a wide range of reasons, e.g. hats, baldness. That sort of hijab should not be banned in public. On the other hand we don't like people walking into shops (or onto busses) in balaclavas or motorcycle helmets.

I think the basic principle of fairness dictates that if we require nudists to cover up, religious nudists should not be exempt. If we require people to show their faces, religious people should not be exempt from that either.

The only question that remains, then, is whether we really do/should impose these requirements on non-religious people. My guess is that if I tried to walk onto a bus wearing a balaclava, most drivers would react in a similar way to this one. Nor should I be allowed to go into a bank wearing a gorilla mask just because the Flying Spaghetti Monster (bless his noodly appendage) says I need to wear one the third Thursday of every 30-day month.

On the other hand
In France the debate has cooled down a bit. They're saying that making a law specifically against this sort of thing would be like breaking a butterfly upon the wheel. I normally wouldn't want to say that it's question of numbers but on this point I agree, that a specific law is not necessary (and thus Muslims would even be justified in feeling persecuted by a law specifically tageting them). Current rules about not concealing your identity should be quite sufficient.

Bogan Names

This is perennial bugbear for me but the SMH has just released the list of Australia's most over-used names for 2008. Here it is :
Jack, William, Lachlan, Joshua, Riley, Thomas, Cooper, Oliver, James and Ethan
Mia, Chloe, Isabella, Charlotte, Emily, Ella, Olivia, Sienna, Ava and Sophie

Now, it's not SMH's fault that people don't know the difference between a surname and a given name, don't know what full name goes with a nickname or just make shit up. The main problem with the article is that they quote a social researcher who says that this is a conservative trend. The dolt claims that "in 1950, John was the most popular boy's name but is now ranked 80th". Not it's not - Jack's listed at #1. The boy's list also contains two surnames mistaken for given names. Riley? Cooper? Do you really want your son to grow up a barrel-maker?

And what's with the girls' names? I want to meet the parents of a Sienna just so I can ask whether she's named after the limonite clay or after the Toyota van.

Those poor kids. Won't someone please think of the children!?