Rant about FIFA Law 12

As a light summer rant, I want to talk about football.

My own interest has mostly revolved around other sports, but football is relatively hard to avoid, especially when living in England, like I was from the late 1990s onwards.  So I tried to fit in.  I went to the pub to watch Premier League games, I read up on it, I picked a team I pretended to support (Liverpool, in case anyone’s interested).

Then came the 2002 World Cup.  I remember the game very well, although I can’t even recall who England was playing, which says something about how interesting it was.  But as I was confessing to my housemate that the action looked a bit boring and I couldn’t understand why they kept insisting bringing the ball up the left side every time, the commentator mentioned casually that it was a very hot day and the left side of the field was the only one in the shade. 

That was it for me. 

You see, I could just about put up with the fact that it was all fundamentally dull and not much was ever happening.  I could also put up with the annoying filming where these supposedly tough athletes went down screaming like a bunch of babies in situations where you could see they were hardly touched.*  I could even put up with the inevitable penalty shootouts where the goalie always went in the opposite direction to the shot and the only way not to get it in was to be so incompetent as to actually miss the 7.3m x 2.4m goal.  But I couldn’t put up with the fact that in the most important tournament in the world the English players’ primary interest was to stay in the shade.  Nope, couldn’t put up with that, even if it was a REALLY HOT DAY.

So for a long time I gave up on football.  Then I moved to France, and the French know how to watch sports, so I ended up being swept away by the exciting 2006 World Cup.  I haven’t looked back since.  The sport had taken a turn for the better and the Spanish domination that has installed itself in the last few years has been nothing but good.  The game nowadays is fast, the passes short and skilled, there are goals and penalties, fast runs and hard tackles.  There is still some cry-babying, but much less so, presumably because modern TV technology will swiftly reveal you for the idiot that you are if you do that. 

So it is all for the better.

Well ... ALMOST all.

What I would like to know is this:  Who on earth got the idea to ban the players from ripping off their shirt when they scored a goal???  There are so many more goals being scored now than there were 10-15 years ago.  This would mean so many more opportunities to see all that ... toned, ... ripped, ... jubilation.  *sigh* They were SO CLOSE to creating a truly crowd-friendly sport.

Being a true believer in democracy I suggest starting a petition on change.org for reversing the 2004 amendment to FIFA Law 12.  Who’s with me?

*I dare anyone to try THAT in an ice hockey game ...

Rant about Perversions

The United States Supreme Court has struck down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and California’s Proposition 8, in two welcome boosts for the equal rights of homosexuals.  Hooray, champagne bottle corks poppin!  While some of us still have to hang our national heads in shame (hello there, fellow Finns, as well as my Swiss and German friends) as being more backward than we would like to think ourselves when it comes to marriage equality, I prefer being forward looking.  It is just a matter of time, at least as far as Finland is concerned.  Probably also for Switzerland, although we know from experience that the “time” might just be a few decades longer than in surrounding Europe.*

Since gay rights are, or will be, pretty much in the bag, I want to look at the future, and what are the next battlefields in the sphere of sexual equality.  I will again be guided by the United States Supreme Court, and draw my inspiration from the great liberal thinker that is Justice Antonin Scalia** who stated in his dissenting opinion in Lawrence v. Texas 123 S.Ct. 2472 (2003), a case that found the criminalisation of homosexuality to be unconstitutional, that anti-gay laws were like legal bans on “bigamy, ... adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication [and] bestiality”.

I had to study the judgment as part of my comparative human rights course at university and our excellent, provocative professor paused on this passage and asked us whether Scalia had a point:  Was homosexuality really that different from bigamy, adult incest or bestiality?

I loved the exercise, and put my natural distaste for issues such as incest aside to ask myself the genuine question: What sexual behaviour can be regulated by the state, and what should be left for the bedroom?  I don’t think the issue should be determined on the basis of our personal feelings about the sexual practice itself, but on some principled ground. 

For me, I decided that the principled ground is this:  As long as the practice involves consenting adults, it is not for the state to concern itself with it.  And when it comes to corollaries of sexual behaviour, such as the institution of marriage, the state should really provide the same rights to everybody, as long as the practice itself is permitted.

Applying this principle to the list, I find that the line is drawn at bestiality.  Animals are not capable of consenting to sex with humans in any meaningful way, so sex with animals, like sex with children, can be illegal.  But bigamy, adult incest, prostitution, “fornication” (ie sex outside marriage) and adultery are all OK.  (I won’t stoop to even comment on masturbation). 

You may initially be shocked, as I was.  For example, the idea of sex with a close relative is repulsive to most of us.  But it might not be to everyone, and frankly, if someone wants to have sex with their father or sister, it is none of our business.  Many have heard about the case of Patrick Stuebing and Susan Karolewski, a perfect example of where the anti-incest laws led to a real injustice.

Similarly, why would we restrict the right to marry to just two people?  What is the justification to deny bigamy, or polygamy in general, between consenting adults?  None, except that we are instinctively drawn to the purity of the biblical idea of a monogamous heterosexual marriage as the “proper” state of affairs.  We might also look at some cultural practises and fear that polygamy will lead to abuse, unhealthy relationships and misery.  Well, many monogamous heterosexual relationships lead to such things and we don’t deny the institution as a result.  As polyamorous people are becoming more open about their lifestyle choice (see e.g. here or here for info), I’m predicting that polygamy is the next issue on the sexual equality agenda, and you know now whose banner I will be marching under.

*Fun fact:  Appenzell was the last Swiss Canton to admit women’s suffrage (=right to vote) in 1990, and only because the Federal Supreme Court (Tribunal Fédéral) forced them to.

** That was sarcasm.  Scalia is an arch-conservative douchebag.

Rant about Scarves and Shoes

I have always been uncomfortable with my relationship with shoes.  More particularly shoes with high heels.  Most of you know that while I do not spend ridiculous amounts of money on them, I am unreservedly a fan of a nice pair of heels.  More than that, those that have come across me in a work setting know that my professional persona is clad almost exclusively in trouser suits coupled with a fairly high pair.  All day, every day.

I know all the feminist arguments against heels.  They’re uncomfortable.  They’re not healthy for feet or for posture.  They make it harder to run away from an attacker, thereby weakening women’s independence and agency.

But they look so much nicer than flat shoes!  And they permit me to look down at most men, at least physically if not figuratively, in a profession where the vast majority of the movers and shakers are still men.*  There is also something to be said about the power portrayed by high heels.  Stilettos are not a self-evident part of the dominatrix wardrobe for nothing...

OK, you weren’t entirely convinced.  Neither am I.  But I will still continue wearing my heels.

The topic of today’s rant is actually Muslims.  What is the connection between Muslims and high heels, you ask.  Here’s what: The headscarf of an intelligent feminist Muslim woman is like my pair of heels.  A personal choice that may not seem to coincide perfectly with our feminist ideals, but will not make us any less feminist in the grand scheme of things.  I can’t really dismiss the feminist arguments against high heels, but I will continue to wear them nonetheless.  Similarly, I can probably win the argument against a Muslim woman about the cultural significance of the scarf as a tool of women’s oppression, but it is unlikely to make her take it off.

And that is just fine.

I have for a long time felt annoyed at the “scarf debate”, both in France and here in Switzerland, because it has taken an extremely patronising attitude towards the women who are most concerned by it, assuming that the choice to wear a scarf CAN’T be theirs, they must have been forced by a man to do it.  I have an idea: If you want to know why Muslim women are wearing scarves, ask them, dammit, don’t assume you know better than they do! 

I was thus really pleased to read the comparison between headscarves and high heels in an interview with Isla Lehtinen, a Finnish Muslim feminist.  I liked it immediately.  It may not make men understand why a Muslim may want to wear a scarf, but it might resonate with women.  The majority of us feminists are not scarf-wearing Muslims, but many of us wear heels at least sometimes. The desire to wear less-than-perfectly-feminist shoes will hopefully make us more understanding and tolerant towards the less-than-perfectly-feminist clothing choices of others without questioning the agency and free will of the persons themselves. 

 * Even though my employer is much better than most in that regard.

Rant about Shopping for Sex

Last week I wrote that the public debate about issues that concern women’s physical agency such as abortion, rape, sexual assault and domestic violence could benefit from women actually speaking out more about their personal experiences – to remove the shame and permit us to understand the issues better.

There is an additional issue that belongs in the same category, but where I would actually like to encourage MEN to come forward and tell their stories.

This issue is prostitution.

I know some feminists are vehemently against prostitution, but I am first and foremost a liberal, so I think everyone has in principle the right to do whatever they want as long as it doesn’t hurt others.  That means that if somebody wants to sell her (or his) body for sexual services, then that is a choice for her, not me, to make. 

Prostitutes and their clients suffer from the same kind of stigma as women that have had abortions or been sexually assaulted.  Also, just like rape and abortion, prostitution is incredibly common – it is all around us.  While I may not know many prostitutes, I’m sure I know some of their clients.  I just don’t know they are clients of prostitutes, because it is not something they will admit to.  But why not?  There must be dozens, if not hundreds, of reasons to buy sex and most of them are probably not condemnable.  Why would a single man, or someone in an open relationship, not be allowed to buy sex if he wants to?  Even more understandably for some people, for example those suffering from certain types of physical disabilities or developmental or psychological problems, buying sex might be the only way to get any (for more details, see here for a dispassionate account or here for a more scandalised take on the issue).

So come on gentlemen: admit boldly if you’ve used the services of a prostitute and please explain why.  I won’t judge.  I would just like to understand.

Rant about Silence

When discussing policies and changes to the legal framework relating to difficult issues, a proper understanding of the issues at stake is usually key.  Yet this is often not the case when it comes to issues that have a fundamental impact on the rights of women, especially physical integrity.  I am of course talking about rape, domestic violence, abortion and the like.  Everyone thinks that these things are happening somewhere far away, to some other people, but they are so prevalent that they are by necessity happening right here to people around us.  You may not know about a person’s rape, assault or abortion, but let me assure you that you know people who have been raped or assaulted, or who have had an abortion.

How can we commonly know whether and in what circumstances abortion legislation can be tightened, if we do not understand the reasons for deciding to have an abortion or the impact that decision has on a woman?  How can we know what is the right way to reduce rape if we have no idea of the circumstances in which rape is likely to occur?

These are the main reasons why I think it is so important to break the silence about these issues.  We have recently had some good role models:  The journalist Lucy Cavendish is an example of someone who has spoken openly and unapologetically in Britain about her two abortions.  I also salute the four women who recently told their abortion stories to Helsingin Sanomat with their own names and pictures, helping us all to understand how multifaceted the issue really is, and giving a glimpse into the myriad of reasons why a woman may decide to abort, and how it may make her feel.

There are some indications of similar opening up in relation to rape – at least in the United States if not here.  Hollywood actress and political hopeful Ashley Judd has talked in public about being a rape victim.  A brave woman called Tucker Reed went even further:  Not only did she reveal the story of how she got raped by her boyfriend, but actually publicly named the rapist as well.  I would recommend Reed’s story to anyone, it might help you understand how “mundane” rape can really be, and why a woman might not even always first realise, let alone accept, that she has been raped.

There is a continuum from harassment to sexual assault to rape, which is why the Everyday Sexism Project that Ioana linked in a comment to an earlier rant is so important in more ways than one.  I do believe there could well be a bit of a “broken windows” phenomenon going on here.  It is not called rape “culture” for no reason –not because everyone rapes but because the culture that condones harassment and takes women’s bodies to be public property is likely to increase rape and its tolerance.

Assault, rape and abortion can be tragedies and deeply personal experiences, which is why nobody should be forced to talk about them.  However, to the extent that someone WANTS to talk about them, whether to get sympathy from their loved ones, contribute to public debate or help others in similar situations, it is very important that they not be shamed into silence.

It is of course easy to encourage others to talk about their experiences, but shut up about one’s own.  So here is my story:

I was living in Paris at the time, walking home late at night from a night club.  At some point a man started chatting to me and I did not wish to appear rude, so initially responded.  He wanted to continue the conversation and began making propositions.  I declined, first politely, then more insistently.  He followed me.  He trailed me all the way to my building, and when I firmly told him to piss off, he made a lunge for the door and forced his way in before I could pull it properly shut.  He attacked me in the atrium.  We struggled for a while, but once he realised he was not getting anywhere, or it was going to be a lot of hassle and I could well wake up the neighbours with my yelling, he gave up his original idea, snatched my bag and was back out the door before I could properly realise what had even happened.  Although I got away physically mostly intact, with only some minor bruises and scratches, I was surprised at the intensity of the anxiety attacks I was subject to later, and how long after the original event those kept coming back following some trigger events.

Many of you have heard the story of this attack ... But probably the version that has focused on the robbery, and omitted the fact that it was actually first and foremost an attempted rape.  I now find it hard to explain why I almost automatically erased that part of the story.  I no longer feel any need or desire to do that.

Yes, I was walking home alone in a big city late at night.  Yes, I answered when a stranger spoke to me.  Yes, I continued straight home although he was following me.  No, I am not to blame for being sexually assaulted and I will be damned if I let that asshole, or anyone like him, make me change my behaviour.

Rant about Water

Not long ago I read in Newsweek a short review of Brahma Chellaney’s Water, Peace, and War: Confronting the Global Water Crisis,* in which it was stated that “by the 2020’s two thirds of the world’s population will face problems getting enough of the stuff” – the “stuff” being water. 

I felt like I was taken back a few decades, to my childhood and youth, where we were told that people in Africa don’t have enough water and are dying of thirst.  This was the prelude to telling us kids to stop wasting water.  Small changes might have occurred, you know, turning off the tap while brushing our teeth or shampooing our hair, but nothing major.  Some years later the toilets with two different flush sizes came on the markets, but that was about the end of that.  I haven’t heard anyone talk about water shortages in years, and it is certainly not something I or those around me take into account in our lives, no matter how socially and ecologically conscientious we try to be in our daily choices.  I can personally say, for example, that I have learnt to LOVE a long hot shower on a cold evening...

And yet, in a few years’ time TWO THIRDS of the world’s population will face problems getting enough water.  That should be a huge problem and a scandal on a global scale.

What is it that turns an imminent humanitarian crisis into news and a global scandal?  Do we just have too many of them, so we have to select which ones to attend to?  What else is happening out there, as potentially disastrous and large in scale as the developing water scandal, that I know nothing about, because for some reason it has not made it into mainstream media – or if it has, then only into a tiny article in Newsweek that I might as well have missed?

*Christopher Dickey, “Big Think: Water Wars”, Newsweek, 22 April 2013

Rant about German Crooks

Having had a go at Great Britain a few weeks ago, it is time to turn to Germany.

The starting point of this rant is Switzerland, though.  Switzerland has been an interesting place to be now when the world’s attention has been turning towards tax evasion, and Swiss media has been fascinating to follow.  For example, when the Cahuzac affair became public knowledge, Swiss media emphasised the fact that the authorities here had immediately responded when requested to do so by their French counterparts, revealing the information that forced the story, and Mr Cahuzac’s political career, to unravel.  Similarly, when “Offshore leaks” hit the news, the Swiss press was ever so slightly gleeful in its “see?  It’s not just us!” attitude.  To some extent my beloved neighbours have in fact been since vindicated, with the EU starting to look into cleaning up its own back yard (also known as the Cayman Islands, Bermuda, the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands, Luxembourg, Netherlands Antilles, Cyprus etc) in addition to putting pressure on others.

And here is where Germany enters the picture.  One of the main aspects of this chase of tax evaders has been the see-saw between Switzerland and Germany, where Germany has tried to force its smaller neighbour to enter into a bilateral treaty that would give the German tax authorities the right to automatically get information about deposits by German tax payers in Swiss banks.  When the diplomatic arm-twisting has failed (in the last round it was actually the German parliament that rejected the agreed text as not tough enough), the tax authorities have taken the dubious short cut of buying stolen data containing just such information instead.  This has now happened several times.

In all this one thing appears to be forgotten: it is NOT criminal in this country, or any other, to put money in a bank account.  The Swiss banks have in fact done nothing wrong.  By contrast, it is not only criminal, but morally reprehensible, to evade taxes.  Tax evasion, like corruption, is stealing from the poorest members of society.

So why are so many Germans so keen to defraud the tax authorities?  Hey Germans, the Swiss pay their taxes without any grumbles!  Time magazine says it’s because they have their direct democracy, but I think the reason is simpler: taxes here are low and we get good services for them.  Why would you not pay?  It’s value for money!  The Finns also do not really evade taxes.  Partially I think because there are not that many rich people in Finland, partially because the total transparency of the system (everyone’s tax records are publicly available) discourages hiding and makes getting caught more likely and partially because it is publicly totally condemned.

Shame on you Germany, the promised land of tax evasion.  Stop bullying Switzerland and focus on figuring out the reasons why your citizens are so eager to engage in stealing from the poorest members of society.  As far as I understand, tax evasion gets very light penalties* and must be pretty acceptable behaviour, since so many people do it.  Maybe that could be a place to start ...

*My understanding was that if you confess tax evasion in Germany you escape criminal sanctions altogether, and only have to pay the back taxes, but F assures me this is not the case.