NVD: Paedophilia and politics

We have a new poltical party! It is called the NVD: "Naastenliefde, Vrijheid en Diversiteit" roughly translated as "Neighbourly Love, Freedom and Diversity". They created a storm of protests in Holland as well as internationally. The NVD proposes some radical political issues like legalizing both hard & softdrugs, legalizing streaking, enforcing everybody to become vegetarians and... legalizing paedophilia. The party proposes to allow children aged 12 and up to feature in pornmovies and legalize consenting sex between adults and children of 12 years and older. As you may imagine, the storm of protests has little to do with the legalizing of drugs.

I have a very open mind regarding anyone's political or religious standpoints... but I personally consider this really as over the edge. However, besides the enormous stereotypical mediahype which has jumped these people there are some very thoughtprovoking issues that deserve to be adressed properly. Properly meaning: rational consideration of the implications instead of a fervent first passionate reaction. I am not a very big fan of baseball-bat politics.

My first point is morally. I am a liberal. I strongly believe that sexual urges are a very personal matter and as such the urge should never be classified as legal or unlegal. Giving in to certain urges is another matter. Conscious or unconscious action by any individual is subject to the rules and laws of society. Whether we like it or not, only society decides what is wrong. I am a very happy heterosexual living in a state which has defined such borders quite clearly and quite broad. Paedophilia is outside those borders. Homo/bisexuality, prostitution and a whole range of other so-called "undecent" behaviours is legal and should be so. I don't practice/make use of it but if other people need that freedom that is very fine by me. Who am I to judge them? Paedophilia is another matter entirely. It is unlegal and immoral simply because it is a relationship between people who are not equals. There is a reason we consider children to be minors; we don't allow them to vote or hold citizenrights simply because they haven't grown up (stating the obvious is an art ;) ). Part of not being grown up is the freedom of responsibility. Children should not be forced to carry responsibility or expected to make decisions on an equal level as an adult.

Thus by it's very nature paedophilia results in abuse. Abuse, at the very least, because you force children into making decisions they should not have to make. Sexual abuse, no matter how many proposals anyone does, is a crime and should remain so. Sexuality in any form is a matter between consenting equals.

A second point which makes me think are the political aspects. If these people want to participate in the upcoming parliamentary elections (May 2007) they should register at the electorate commision with a list of at least 60.000 signatures. I cannot possibly imagine them collecting such an ammount. But if they did, should we prevent them to? I fear we have little to stop them and I am wondering if I would be in favour of a ban. When they meet the official criteria for becoming a party a ban would be very damaging to our democracy. Probably more damaging than allowing them to participate. Who in this nation can be trusted with the power to allow or disallow politcal parties/thoughts/ideas on moral grounds? The answer in a democracy is by it's very nature of course 'nobody'. Compare it to the euthanasia debate which raged during the 90s. Before legalizing active euthanasia in The Netherlands it was considered murder and immoral. In short it was as much a crime as paedophilia. Nonetheless it became a political issue and eventually after a heavy and long debate a parliamentary majority approved a law which under certain conditions legalized euthanasia. Regardless of my personal opinion, isn't this the very same thing? If it is, should that not mean that if the NVD meets all criteria to participate they should be allowed to do so and be engaged in democratical debate? The real issue here is do we trust democracy enough to be capable of handling these extremes?

Shit

No matter how strong I may seem, being dumped without ever getting a new chance hurts like hell... period.


Can't feel this way now, need to make an exam tonight.

*shit*


- Music: Marillion - Afraid of Sunlight

Scandinavian conversion

My paper on cultural changes after the Scandinavian conversion during the 10th and 11th centuries is done!

You can read it here

But it is in dutch though!

Next year's courses!

Ok... I know it is a tiny *bit* early but I am already anticipating next semester! The menu so far - which is subject to changes as I see fit -

- Monday 20:30 – 22:00 Historiography
- Tuesday 11:00 – 13:00 Ancient History: Christianity in the Roman world
- Tuesday 18:45 – 20:15 Medieval History: Popular faith and superstition in the Middle Ages
- Tuesday 20:30 – 22:00 Medieval Paleography
- Wednesday 20:00 - 22:00 French for beginners

I was also looking to start a first course in Latin or Medieval Philosophy. Regretably, neither course fit in my roster since I do need to go to work too... :( So instead I decided on a first course in French! Lots of articles and books on medieval history are written in this language and I can't read any of it. For the other fun stuff I have several more years... :)

Exams now first! I have finished my paper on the cultural aspects of the Scandinavian conversion to Christianity in the ninth and tenth centuries and will put it up for reading soon. May 29th I'll do an exam in 'Scientific/Historical Philosophy' and June 8th in Medieval Christianity. Oh, and I almost forgot, I need to write a small piece on some Medieval dutch texts which is due June 1st :)

Amazon goes p.o.d.!

Thijs, beware of the competition ;)

- Tweakers article in dutch -

The Da Vinci Code

Last Friday I went with Thijs to the Da Vinci Code. He wanted to see it and I well, had little else to do and was curious how bad it would be. Well, bad is not really the right word. It is euhm… different and entertaining. I fear I laughed harder than was intended and there were quite some people looking annoyed. But I can’t really help it… I mean the cinema was filled with ‘believers’!

The story itself was entertaining but for a movie with a briliant cast like this it remained very very flat. Thijs told me that it was comparable to the book, which I haven’t read, but I expected more from actors like Tom Hanks and Audrey Tautou. Tautou played such a wonderful part in ‘Le Fabuleux destin d’Amélie Poulain’ where she proved to be one of France’s greatest actresses. Amélie is arguably one of the greatest stories ever written for film and I would cut off my left arm in order to be able to write stories like that.

Anyways I appreciated the fact that the Code was nearly an entire European production. It was filmed in Paris and the UK and besides Tautou there were several more great European actors cast. Ian McKellen was of course great and arguably the best actor in the film. Especially near the end where he gleefully cackles like a lunatic, priceless. However Jean Reno was not into his thing I fear. I have seen him do so many better movies like Leon and stuff. The movie missed any chemistry between the characters. I didn’t really connect and probably wouldn’t have cared much if Hanks got shot or anything. Neither was there any fire between him and Tautou. Not that it needed any heavy romance or something but a bit of sparkles and electricity would have made a difference. Somewhere in the last scene you feel like they give it a try but it crashes before it even takes off. Using the last scene for sparkles is a bit too late in my opinion anyway.

About the story, well, besides being rushed through it in two-and-a-half-hours, it remained as I said a bit flat. All the essentials are covered and explained. The public is really taken by the hand during a very straightforward quest. There are no sudden plottwists except the ‘surprises’ any such story needs. However it would help if the ‘surprises’ would be a bit more surprising. As it stood I was half expecting most of them and there aren’t many to begin with. I felt like Mr. Brown wanted to put as much Christian mythology into his story as he got his hands on. Everything from Gnostic texts, the Knights Templar, Mary Magdalene and the Holy Grail. I was more or less waiting for the Arc of the Covenant (yesyes I *know* that is Judaic), the Judas Gospel and the other Dead Sea Scrolls. In his stead (said the unpublished writer jealously about the bestselling author ;-) ) I would have cut my facts by half, got them straightened out and kept the ending open. Because that’s in my opinion the worst thing about this story. I would have appreciated it if at the end of the story the mystery remains wether or not Miss Sophie is the blood of Christ. Something to chew on after the story is finished. Please give me as the reader/public a bit of credit since I am very capable of drawing my own conclusions thank you very much. I don’t need an author to spell out every last line for me.

With all these supposed facts I have a bit of a problem that most of them are just historically wrong. I know that it isn’t a factual story although Dan Brown claims a hundred times he did his ‘research’ (I mean a holiday in France doesn’t really classify imho!). During the movie when Teabing (McKellen) starts explaining his theory I really had a hard time not getting annoyed. If you claim to write a conspiracy which could have happened (something, if succesful, I really appreciate) at least get your facts straight! At his death Emperor Constantine did not rule the Roman Empire from Rome but from Constantinople. There was no large civil war between Christians and pagans and no Constantine did *not* edit/rewrite the Bible. Especially not because, as Brown correctly claims, the Emperor remained pagan until his deathbed. The modern version of the Bible itself is based on the medieval Vulgata which was designed by St. Jerome in the sixth century (about two centuries after Emperor Constantine!). Jerome was a true editor and cut the number of gospels back to the current four and restructured them so they were essentially all the same story. He added and removed stuff at leisure under protection of Pope Donatius (the Second I believe). Donatius was a bit in conflict with the Patriarch of Constantinople over supremacy in the church so the entire work must be placed in a larger political context. Anyways, I digress. No Christian sect was going to accept the gospel as rewritten by a pagan. More annoying was the description of the Council of Nicaea as some hugely orchestrated conspiracy. Gnostic sects had held Christ as divine for at least a century before the Council and it was certainly not newly conjured up by bad bad men trying to influence the course of modern history...

So all in all, the Da Vinci Code was entertaining but there are a zillion better religious-thrillers out there. My favourite number one is Rupert Wainwright's Stigmata (great artistic document with lots of contrast and great acting). Followed closely by Dogma (cynical genius with Alanis Morisette as God and Alan Rickman as the Metatron, the voice of God). Devil’s Advocate is great too especially the second half with Al Pacino’s monologues as the Devil: pure genius! The grand-daddy of the supernatural-thrillers is of course The Prophecy with Christopher Walken as the fallen archangel Gabriel, super creepy! As long as I am at it, Constantine based on the American comic series with Keanu Reeves is also a favourite. Well beyond those there is a whole list of other productions at equal level as the Code: Crimson Rivers I and II (German/French with Jean Reno), The Ninth Gate by Roman Polanski and Johnny Depp etc. etc.

Well so much for my opinion :) I also found this one, quoting LadySisyphus from LJ:
Saw the DaVinci Code movie, had problems not cracking up during Teabing's pseudo-history of Christianity, had problems not falling asleep during the rest of it. When I again got hung up on the ridiculous history and my geologist stepfather tried to give me a hard time about it, I tried to put it in terms of thriller predicated on the premise that the earth is hollow, and that everything you've ever been taught in your earth science classes is wrong and that there's a huge conspiracy of geologists to keep you from knowing that the earth is hollow -- and then asked him to take that one seriously. Bonus points for giving Tom Hanks' character some actual reasonable counter-arguments to Teabing's flights of fancy, and for not harping on the sacred feminine any more than absolutely necessary, but I still stand by my assessment that it's Jurassic Park for church historians.

Amen to that.

New life - new chances - new blog

It is quite confronting to realize that you do *not* hold the key to your own hapiness. There is stuff in this world that doesn't listen and will bite you. We really can't avoid it and trying to do so is a complete waste of time. Dealing with it isn't though and I will not quit working towards my own hapiness. There is, even with all the sadness, lots to enjoy. New freedom and new chances to rebuild my life the way *I* want it. This sounds very egoistic but it's about all that's left for me to do. I might as well get started.

Music: Billy Joel - Pianoman