Allowing Women To Drive Would Mean No More Virgins, Saudi Arabia Religious Council Says


Allowing women to drive in Saudi Arabia would mean no more virgins and an increase in homosexuality, according to academics at Saudi Arabia’s highest religious council, Majlis al-Ifta’ al-A’ala, it has been reported in the Telegraph.

More pornography would be used if women were allowed on the roads and rates of prostitution and divorce would also risethe report stated.

Produced in conjunction with Kamal Subhi, a former professor at the King Fahd University, the study into repealing the ban predicted that there would be no more virgins left in the Arab kingdom in 10 years.

Saudi Arabia is the only country in the world which bans women from driving.

Professor Subhi described sitting in a coffee shop in an unnamed Arab state where “all the women were looking at me“.

“One made a gesture that made it clear that she was available,” he said. “This is what happens when women are allowed to drive.”

The report was produced for the country’s legislative assembly, the Shura Council. However this institution has no power as Saudi Arabia is ruled by a monarchy with absolute power.

The state’s controversial ban on female drivers last came under attack in September after Shaima Jastaniya was sentenced to 10 lashes just days after Saudi King Abdullah granted women the right to vote. The punishment was overturned after international and domestic pressure.

Saudi Arabia is currently considering a law for women to cover up their eyes if they are deemed too“tempting.”

HuffPo

WHAT. WTF Saudia Arabia. Seriously? 

All bolding in the above is mine. Because WHAT.

Seriously, Saudi Arabi, what the fuck are you doing. 

I cannot respond to this coherently right now. Jesus fucking christ.

~Mooglets

Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson: How Liberal Women Are Building a Shameless Society


Wow, dude. Way to be slut shaming, degrading, bigoted, sex shaming misogynist. To the goddamned extreme. 

Fuck you and the religion you rode in on.

~Mooglets

God Ordained Oppression


I recently had a conversation with a Christian acquaintance over the subject of feminism.  She attempted to explain that ‘true’ feminism, from a Christian perspective, meant understanding the purpose given to you by God. The word ‘feminazi’ was dropped and I admittedly became irate.  She assertion that “women deserve better than abortion, abortion isn’t a choice,” and then my brain exploded out of the back of my head.

It’s time to focus on the common good – not minorities, says Archbishop of Canterbury


The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, has said that the United Kingdom is in danger of losing its identity over gay rights and feminism.

In a recent speech to Welsh teenagers, the 61 year-old – who recently resigned from his role to return to academics – claimed that identity had become a “slippery” word because too much emphasis has been placed on the rights of minority groups.

Instead, he insisted that society focus on the common good. 

“Identity politics, whether it is the politics of feminism, whether it is the politics of ethnic minorities or the politics of sexual minorities, has been a very important part of the last ten or 20 years because before that I think there was a sense that diversity was not really welcome,” he said.

“And so minorities of various kinds and … women began to say: ‘Actually we need to say who we are in our terms, not yours’ and that led to identity politics of a very strong kind and legislation that followed it.

“We are now, I think, beginning to see the pendulum swinging back and saying identity politics is all very well but we have to have some way of putting it all back together again and discovering what is good for all of us and share something of who we are with each other so as to discover more about who we are.”
 
He added: “Identity isn’t just something sealed off and finished with … it’s always work in progress. Once we start saying, “This is my identity and that’s it” then I think we are in danger of really fragmenting the society we belong to.”

The comments come shortly after he scolded British people who rely on state welfare and social benefits as a danger to society.

Pink Paper

Why is this man ever allowed to open his mouth, let alone why is he ever given a public forum to espouse his hateful views?

~Mooglets

A minor Moroccan commits suicide after being forced to marry her rapist


A minor 16 years Moroccan decided to end her life in Larache (North of Morocco) after being forced to marry her rapist, ten years older than she, and by the mistreatment to which she was subjected.

Says daily local “to Massae” in its edition of this Tuesday, last Saturday the girl decided to eat a rat poison in the House of the family of the husband, desperate for the ill-treatment to which he was subjected by this and her husband, as well as the rejection of his own father to receive at home.

The history dates back to a year ago when the family of the victim deposited a complaint with the Attorney general of Tangier accusing the perpetrator of sexual violation, points daily.

After an intervention by acquaintances of the two families, was decided to marry the girl to her rapist with the authorization of the judge.

This type of marriage is imposed by the force of tradition, especially in rural areas to safeguard the honour of the young and “resolve” the damage caused after the violation.

Also, according to the Moroccan penal code the rapist is exempt from punishment if he admits to marry his victim.

Claims of feminist movements include the amendment of this article, according to Hafida Elbaz, Director of the women’s solidarity Association, it is a “trap” to evade sanctions.

The Delta World

Breaking: Democratic Women Boycott House Contraception Hearing After Republicans Prevent Women From Testifying


This morning, Democrats tore into House Oversight Committee Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) for preventing women and minorities from testifying before a hearing examining the Obama administration’s new regulation requiring employers and insurers to provide contraception coverage to their employees. Republicans oppose the administration’s rule and have sponsored legislation that would allow employers to limit the availability of birth control to women.

Ranking committee member Elijah Cummings (D-MD) had asked Issa to include a female witness at the hearing, but the Chairman refused, arguing that “As the hearing is not about reproductive rights and contraception but instead about the Administration’s actions as they relate to freedom of religion and conscience, he believes that Ms. Fluke is not an appropriate witness.”

And so Cummings, along with the Democratic women on the panel, took their request to the hearing room, demanding that Issa consider the testimony of a female college student. But the California congressman insisted that the hearing should focus on the rules’ alleged infringement on “religious liberty,” not contraception coverage, and denied the request. Reps. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) and Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) walked out of the hearing in protest of his decision, citing frustration over the fact that the first panel of witnesses consisted only of male religious leaders against the rule. Holmes Norton said she will not return, calling Issa’s chairmanship an “autocratic regime.”

AlterNet

See a video compilation of the exchange at the link.

I’ve bolded the part I thought needed the most attention.

You know what that statement says? That says that women shouldn’t be allowed to talk ever, the men are being important and making important decisions, so the women should shut up and just take it.

IT DOESN’T MATTER HOW MUCH THESE PEOPLE TALK ABUOT IT BEING A RELIGIOUS FREEDOM/RIGHTS MATTER, THAT’S BULLSHIT - BECAUSE GUESS THE FUCK WHAT? IT IS A CONTRACEPTIVE, REPRODUCTIVE AND SEXUAL AUTONOMY MATTER.

THE EMPLOYEES WHO HAPPEN TO HAVE WOMBS ARE GOING TO BE AFFECTED BY THIS DECISION. THE EMPLOYEES WHO HAPPEN TO BE ABLE TO GET PREGNANT WILL BE AFFECTED BY THIS.

AND LOOK WHO’S ON THIS PANEL. OLD, WHITE, CIS-MEN OF A RELIGIOUS CONSERVATIVE BENT.

TELL ME THESE OLD, WHITE, CONSERVATIVE, RELIGIOUS CIS-MEN AREN’T JUST SCARED OF WOMEN HAVING CONTROL OF THEIR OWN BODIES.

GO ON. TELL ME THAT. WITH A STRAIGHT FACE AND NO SNIGGERING.

Fuck the Republicans.

Sometimes I am so grateful to be British. I get to actually have control over my womb here.

~Mooglets

Bishops Reject White House’s New Plan on Contraception


The nation’s Roman Catholic bishops have rejected a compromise on birth control coverage that President Obama offered on Friday and said they would continue to fight the president’s plan to find a way for employees of Catholic hospitals, universities and service agencies to receive free contraceptive coverage in their health insurance plans, without direct involvement or financing from the institutions.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops - which has led the opposition to the plan - said in a statement late Friday that the solution offered by the White House to quell a political furor was “unacceptable and must be corrected” because it still infringed on the religious liberty and conscience of Catholics.

The bishops’ decision to rebuff the compromise means that “religious freedom” will continue to be a rallying cry for some Catholics who have heard it preached from the pulpit for the last three weeks, for evangelical Christians on the religious right, for Republican candidates on the campaign trail and for members of Congress who are supporting a legislative fix on Capitol Hill.

Administration officials said the White House had never expected to get the bishops’ support, given their absolute opposition to contraception, and was surprised when the initial statement of the bishops conference on Friday was noncommittal and went so far as to call the president’s modification a step in the right direction.

Mr. Obama said that the compromise would take the Catholic institutions out of the equation by relieving them from either paying for coverage for contraceptives or providing any referral to their employees for the coverage. Instead, insurance companies would be required to pay for the contraceptives, and to arrange it. The insurers will agree, the White House said, because it is more expensive for them to pay for pregnancies than to pay for contraceptives.

Churches and houses of worship that object to birth control coverage are already exempted. The compromise applies to primarily Catholic institutions, such as hospitals, universities and charities, that employ and serve large numbers of non-Catholics.

The bishops said the plan offered insufficient protection for their institutions: “In the case where the employee and insurer agree to add the objectionable coverage, that coverage is still provided as a part of the objecting employer’s plan, financed in the same way as the rest of the coverage offered by the objecting employer. This, too, raises serious moral concerns.” The Obama administration plans to hold a series of meetings in the coming days and will invite the bishops and other religious leaders to collaborate on developing the new policy, said an administration official who was not authorized to speak on the record.

“I guess we’ll try to treat that constructively,” said Richard M. Doerflinger, associate director of pro-life activities at the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. “But within the meantime we also have to explore other avenues, and there are two other branches of government that may treat our concerns more seriously.”

Already three lawsuits have been filed against the birth control mandate, two by religious colleges and one by a Catholic media outlet.

The bishops will also renew their call for lawmakers to pass the “Respect for Rights of Conscience Act,” which would exempt both insurance providers and purchasers - and not just those who are religiously affiliated - from any mandate to cover items of services that is contrary to either’s “religious beliefs or moral convictions.”

The Senate version of the bill was introduced by Senators Roy Blunt of Missouri, Marco Rubio of Florida, and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, all Republicans. It has 36 Republican sponsors and co-sponsors, and one Democratic one - Ben Nelson of Nebraska.

However, the bishops are now facing a potential rift with some of their allies who welcomed the compromise yesterday - including Catholic Charities, the Catholic Health Association, which represents Catholic hospitals across the country and individual Catholic Democrats and liberals who had helped persuade the administration to make the change.

James Salt, executive director of Catholics United, a liberal advocacy group that is organizing support for the Obama administration, said, “The bishops’ blanket opposition appears to serve the interests of a political agenda, not the needs of the American people.”

The bishops had initially called the compromise “a first step in the right direction.” But late Friday they released a second statement saying that the plan raised “a grave moral concern.” Mr. Doerflinger said the reason was that they did not see the rule itself until 7 p.m.; the administration official said, however, that the new rule had not been written yet because the details had not been hashed out, and that the bishops must have read the old rule.

The bishops also were dismayed that the administration did not consult them in crafting the compromise, presenting it to them as a fait accompli.

Mr. Doerflinger said, “We were not part of the negotiation and we were told there wasn’t one by the White House.”

The bishops used the turn of events to renew their objections to the broad requirement that was part of the sweeping health care overhaul passed in 2010 that any employer who has a moral or religious objection - even a small business owner - must offer birth control in their insurance coverage because it is preventive care.

“All the other mandated ‘preventive services’ prevent disease, and pregnancy is not a disease,” the bishops said.

NY Times

Moral opposition to religious misogyny: Religious bigotry towards women is more difficult to counter as it often comes garbed in clothes of piety


Many of us have been watching in horror as a fringe element of haredim in Israel advocate the exclusion of women from all forms of public life.

Over the last week we have seen violence erupt with rioting in Beit Shemesh that included throwing stones at police officers, the threatening of a Ynet female photographer, and perhaps more disturbingly than anything else was the harassment of a seven-year-old girl on the street for not being dressed “modestly enough.”

As the father of a little girl, my outrage can barely be contained.

The idea that women should not be involved with communal affairs and, for all intents and purposes, be treated as second class citizens, is nothing new. Women have been treated this way by men of all cultures, religions and backgrounds for centuries up until relatively recently.

The fact that Jewish communities and their norms, in some ways in the past, went along with this is something we should be embarrassed of, but is not surprising.

Nonetheless, as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has mentioned, a perusal of the Torah and the holy Scriptures clearly shows that woman are not to be seen or treated in this light – much to the contrary.

Certainly today, when it is clear that women are as capable, and arguably more competent and efficient in many ways, than men, there is no excuse for this type of jaundiced attitude.

To say, as this fringe group does, that excluding women is a matter of modesty is nothing short of a smoke screen for what we would otherwise call bigotry.

The idea that women shouldn’t have a say in how things are run because of issues related to modesty is clearly misogyny and male chauvinism dressed up in the cloths of piety. It must not be tolerated at all.

Ambitions know no boundaries

History has taught us that when the rights of women are trodden on, all groups should start to be concerned for their rights. If this is allowed to occur towards women, it will inevitably also turn its attention towards other groups.

Who may be next? Will it be you? Will it be me? Perhaps both of us. Witness how Saudi Arabia treats people who practice a religion other than Islam, or even how it treats members of its own Shi’a minority, for a modern day illustration of this point.

When you examine human nature you will notice that people often remain unsatisfied even after they achieve their stated ambitions. The goalposts seem to keep moving.

When it comes to achieving positive for the universe, for oneself, and for one’s family this is a good thing. Unfortunately, however, this same type of thing happens to people with nefarious aims.

For a long time there has been a tacit approval of woman being relegated to a somewhat lesser status in many religious communities. Even in the Brooklyn enclave of the relatively enlightened Orthodox Jewish community of Crown Heights, women have been barred from voting for the local Jewish Community Council.

But this is changing, at least in Crown Heights. The current Council president, Mr. Zaki Tamir, promised the New York Times in April 2011 that he would reverse this, and women would be allowed to vote in the next election held in 2013.

In some communities, however, there has been no such progress. In fact, the opposite has occurred – the fringe zealots have been emboldened and the standing of women has been slowly eroded.

In Jerusalem, women have been relegated to sit at the back of buses. While visiting Israel last year, for the first time ever, I saw Jewish women in the Geula section of Jerusalem wearing clothes that completely covered their entire face, similar to the Islamic niqab or veil. Companies have been pressured to remove women from their advertisements.

These are all relatively recent additions in many Jewish communities. They are certainly light years away from the Judaism which used to celebrate the 15th of the month of Av as a day when single boys and girls would mingle in the vineyards to meet potential marriage partners.

All types of bigotry must be opposed. But somehow religious bigotry towards women is more difficult to counter because it often comes garbed in the clothes of piety. It is precisely for this reason that we must be vigilant in calling it out and oppose it at every level and immediately whenever and wherever it rears its ugly head.

This responsibility falls primarily to the leaders of the community and the women within the communities. But it also must be opposed by the rest of us.

If a sense of justice does not motivate us, then this should: If bigotry is allowed to thrive in this form, history has taught us that its ambitions know no boundaries.

From Jewish World

Interesting read. 

~Mooglets

“Those who oppose women’s rights are dropping the phrase ‘religious freedom’ all over the place, trying to redefine it as the right to take away someone else’s right of conscience through discrimination and economic pressure.”

Amanda Marcotte, RH Reality Check

Israel: The Ultra-Orthodox assault on womanhood


In a country that produced one of the democratic world’s first female presidents Golda Meir in 1969, Israeli women are getting concerned about the rising prominence of Ultra-Orthodox Jews who are waging a campaign against freedom of women in public life.Israel’s civil laws are very plain about the status of women.

The country, according to The Los Angeles Times, has one of the world’s strictest laws about sexual harassment and rape, which is not surprising, considering that women occupy influential positions in the country, both in the Supreme Court and in the political parties. Israel is one of the few countries in the world in which women are drafted into active military service.

Yet, in recent times, Israeli feminists and women activists say their is a rising clamor from the Ultra-Orthodox community to reverse Israel’s decades of enlightened progress in gender issues.

Recently, Israel’s ranking on the World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap Index dropped from 36 in 2007 to 55 in 2011. The ranking is based on assessment of such factors as workplace discrimination, and differences in pay between the sexes.

The Los Angeles Times reports the growing influence and voice of Ultra-Orthodox Jews in public life in Israel is encroaching upon the public space of women. Until recently, sex-segregation and discrimination against women in public life was limited largely to religious centers such as the Western Wall where women are not allowed and other places of religious worship.

But Ultra-Orthodox Jews have been campaigning for an extension of sex-segregation practices in Jewish society from religious places into public places.The Los Angeles Times reports that Anat Saragusti, director of Agenda, an Israeli group concerned with welfare of minority groups, says:

“The pattern is one of creeping encroachment…They try a little, see if it works, and then push the envelope a bit more every time until things reach a critical mass and are irreversible. That’s when people wake up. But by that point, it’s often too late.”
Rachel Liel, executive director of the New Israel Fund, an advocacy group in civil rights issues, also says:
“We are going backward and losing all our achievements…A 21st century democracy is not a place where women sit in the back of the bus.”

Feminists say women moving to the “back of the bus” seems to be the trend in every aspect of life in Israel now. The main issue in contention is the Ultra-Orthodox insistence on segregation of the sexes as a major aspect of religious observance.

Now, in many of Israel’s religious neighborhoods, women are treated in the same way African-Americans were in the 1960s. Women are expected to enter public buses by the rear door and use seats specially reserved for them in the back while men take the front seats.

 The Los Angeles Times reports there is no law enforcing sex-segregation in public buses, but most women in Ultra-Orthodox communities observe the regulation to avoid victimization.Digital Journal recently reported an ongoing conflict between national religious and Ultra-Orthodox Jews over relocation of a girls’ school.

The Ultra-Orthodox Jews say the presence of “immodestly dressed” prepubescent girls too close to their community violates their religious rights and are demanding that the school either be removed or strict Ultra-Orthodox dressing code, which requires that females cover their entire bodies, be enforced. Digital Journal reports:

“With their growing numbers, the Haredim have been trying to impose their religious and social mores on the entire community, insisting on strict observance of dress code, the sabbath, segregation of sexes in public places and even demanding a ban on electricity and driving.”

Last year, Ultra-Orthodox men in Jerusalem’s Mea Shearim neighborhood constructed a special side-walk for women’s use and enforced its use.

The Supreme Court declared the action discriminatory and therefore illegal, but this year, the men defied the Supreme Court order prohibiting segregation of sexes in public places and banned women from mingling with men in the streets during a religious holiday.

The parallels between increasing opposition to civil rights of women in the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) and conservative opposition to civil rights of gays in the U.S. Army are glaring. Women dancers were forbidden from dancing along with men in a Sukkot holiday ceremony last month. 

The Los Angeles Times reports that some conservative male cadets walked out in protest of women singers at an official event of the IDF.Ultra-Orthodox Jews have blamed secular and liberal Jews for violating their religious freedom and preventing them for living according to “traditional values,” by trying to impose modern ideas and ways of life on Jewish society. 

The Los Angeles Times informs us that what the Ultra-Orthodox Jews take to be “traditional values” include:

“…restrictions on television and the Internet, modest dress codes and segregation of the sexes, which haredi leaders say is needed to protect women from sexual exploitation and men from temptation.”
Leader of a coalition of Ultra-Orthodox Jews Rabbi Shmuel Pappenheim, grumbles about the corrupting influence of secular and liberal Jews:
“Women walk down the street as though they are at the beach…If in the past this was typical only of Tel Aviv, today it has reached Jerusalem as well. They encroach on our way of life, prompting our people to impose new restrictions, deepen separation and erect higher barriers to keep it away.”
Rabbi Shmuel Pappenheim denied allegations that the Haredi are out to suppress women and violate their civil rights. He explains that Ultra-Orthodox traditional values are not meant to discriminate against or oppress women but “protect women’s honor and dignity.”But Hila Benyovits-Hoffman, an Israeli blogger, answers Rabbi Shmuel Pappenheim:
“With all due respect, women are quite capable of defending their own honor…This insane gender separation and obsessive attention to women’s bodies have nothing to do with religion. Perhaps it is sexual repression or frustration out of control.”
Commentators have noticed the strong misogynist leaning in the Orthodox Jewish tradition. According to 972mag.com the cadets who walked out of women singing in an official IDF event defended their action by reference to the Gmara:
“The cadets felt they were prohibited from listening to them sing, under the principle of Jewish law known as ‘a woman’s voice is ervah,’ [the Hebrew word ‘ervah’ refers to a woman’s genitals]…This phrase, commonly used by religious authorities in Israel, implies that very essence of women is lustful and indecent.”
YnetNews.com reports that Chief Rabbi Yona Metzger, defended the action of the cadets, saying:
“It is made clear in the Gmara that the voice of a woman is ervah [pubis]. And the reason it is considered to be like her ervah is that the sound of a singing woman is pleasant, and leads to desire and rumination…In order to prevent such friction in the future, I suggest that in events such as these, where many of the soldiers adhere to the Torah and follow the dictates of Mitzvahs, only males should sing.”
972mag.com concludes on the implication of the learned Chief Rabbi’s statement:
“In other words, the pubis should not sing. Because females are not males, but rather, a mound of flesh growing some fine hairs.”

From Digital Journal

Do I need to repeat myself on the ‘it’s not only Islam that insists women cover themselves head to toe so the men don’t have to look at them’? No? Good. 

This is some misogynist bullshit right here, it really is.

~Mooglets

Culture and religon are no excuse for child brides


How old is too old, how young too young? We may have a visceral revulsion when we witness a large age gap in a relationship, but when does it go from odd to deeply wrong, sick – when should it be illegal? And what can we do about it?

The Daily Telegraph reports that more than 200 17-year-old girls and hundreds of 18, 19 and 20-year-olds have been granted prospective spouse visas to marry older – in some cases much older – men here in Australia.

In one case the age gap was 40 years. In many more, it was just a few years. In one shocking case, a Year 10 Lebanese girl sought protection after her decades older husband-to-be turned out to be a violent drunk with his former wife and children living next door. Her parents then threatened to kill her for disobeying them and fleeing to the authorities.

These stories offer a small glimpse into an enormous global problem. In Southern Asia, about half the girl population is married before the age of 18.  In the developing world, many girls would be lucky to reach 17 or 18 before they are married off. They might be lucky to reach puberty. In some places, in some cultures, paedophilia is institutionalised.

Girls are chattel, to be sold. They are slaves. They are beaten, risk death through childbirth, denied any opportunities in life. Many cultures don’t just tolerate child marriages, they encourage them, and there should be scant surprise that multicultural Australia is not immune.

The usual suspects will bunch their fists, decry the failure of multiculturalism, and blame Islam.

This is about as broad-brush and reactionary as it would be to blame men. Or parents.

Some foul practices have flourished under the name of Islam, particularly when it comes to the treatment of women. But as with so many social issues, religion may be used as the excuse for the abuse, and it may explicitly condone the practice, other factors are also at play.

Continue to read at the above link.

~Mooglets

“Passion for Freedom: Breaking the last taboo
The recent murders of Syrian poet and song writer Ibrahim Qashoush and Iraqi playwright and filmmaker Hadi al-Mahdi, as well as the sentence of one year in jail and 90 lashes to actress Marzieh Vafamehr, and the six-year jail sentence and 20-year filmmaking and travel ban against international award-winning Iranian director Jafar Panahi, amongst others, demands serious attention.

In the west, whilst artists are very often free to express themselves, many nonetheless face huge amounts of pressure for addressing matters deemed ‘offensive’. Artists Sooreh Hera in the Netherlands and Lee-Anne Raymond and Demetrios Vakras in Australia come to mind, raising serious questions about tolerance of dissent, particularly when it comes to criticising religion and that which is taboo.

Criticism of religion is not racist. In fact open disagreement and the freedom to criticise tradition, culture and religion are essential for social progress. Turning a blind eye to the wrongs, threats and injustices committed by religion and religious states and laws is unfair to the innumerable people who are wronged, threatened and treated unjustly. No religion should be immune to criticism.

One Law for All unequivocally supports artists’ freedom of expression to address taboo issues wherever they may be and invites the public to our 2011 Passion for Freedom Art Festival showcasing a shortlist of international artists discussing the taboo through painting, drawing, sculpture, film and installation.

To attend the private view on Saturday 29 October 2011, 18.00 - 21.00 hours at UNIT24 Gallery, 24 Great Guildford Street, London SE1 0FD (Transport Underground stations: Southwark), RSVP your name and mobile number to onelawforall@gmail.com. For more information on the week-long exhibition, visit: http://www.onelawforall.org.uk/art-competition-2011/.

Sharia and the Children Act

One Law for All will host a seminar on Sharia Law and the Children Act on 22 November 2011 from 18.30-20.30 hours at Conway Hall to explore the terms of the Children Act and whether these are compatible with the tenets and practice of sharia law. The seminar will look at the protections provided to children by the provisions of the Children Act and ask if children in Britain, by virtue of their parents’ religion or culture, are at risk of being denied these protections. In addition, One Law for All will provide information on Catholic Canon Law and how this has been used to facilitate the continued abuse of children in Catholic institutions. Speakers include: Sue Cox, Survivors Voice Europe; Anne Marie Hutchinson, Dawson Cornwell Solicitors; Maryam Namazie, One Law for All; Diana Nammi, Iranian and Kurdish Women’s Rights Organisation; and Yasmin Rehman, Chair of the Board of Trustees of Domestic Violence Intervention Project. The seminar will be chaired by Anne Marie Waters, One Law for All.

For more information or to pre-register for the seminar, visit: http://www.onelawforall.org.uk/22-november-2011-seminar-on-sharia-and-the-children-act-london/.

NOTES
 
1. To donate to the crucial work of One Law for All, please either send a cheque made payable to One Law for All to BM Box 2387, London WC1N 3XX, UK or pay via Paypal by visiting: http://www.onelawforall.org.uk/donate/.
 
We need regular support that we can rely on and are asking for supporters to commit to giving at least £5-10 a month via direct debit. You can find out more about how to join the 100 Club here: http://www.onelawforall.org.uk/donate/.
 
2. The One Law for All Campaign was launched on 10 December 2008, International Human Rights Day, to call on the UK Government to recognise that Sharia and religious courts are arbitrary and discriminatory against women and children in particular and that citizenship and human rights are non-negotiable. To join the campaign, sign our petition here: http://onelawforallpetition.com/onelaw/onela300.php?nr=40155035.
 
3. For further information contact:
Maryam Namazie and Anne Marie Waters
Spokespersons
One Law for All
BM Box 2387
London WC1N 3XX, UK
Tel: +44 (0) 7719166731
onelawforall@gmail.com
www.onelawforall.org.uk

(via culpepper)

Godless Bitches: Feminism from a secular perspective.


The Godless Bitches podcast was created by Beth Presswood to focus on feminist issues from a secular perspective and to help increase the presence of women’s voices in the secular community.

For those of us who are feminist and feel like women’s voices need to be heard within the secular/atheist community. 

~Mooglets

Atheist Feminism


Atheist feminist Annie Laurie Gaylor cofounded the Freedom From Religion Foundation in 1976,[14] and was also editor of Freethought Today from 1984 to 2009, when she became executive editor.[14] Aside from promoting atheism in general, her atheist feminist activities include writing the book “Woe To The Women: The Bible Tells Me So”.

A pretty good run down, on Wikipedia, of the Atheist Feminist movement and women involved in Atheism in general. 

~Mooglets