The veil is a "choice"?

In a recent vote in France, the Burka, the Muslim veil, was banned in public places in an astonishing majority of 336-1. This is obviously a controversial matter and some worry and claim that this move is unconstitutional as many wear the veil "out of choice".

I take serious issue at the use of the word "choice" here, as if, presented with all the facts since birth, presented with every religious world view, every explanation for who we are, evolutionary theory, intelligent design, Allah, Jesus, Buddha, and the tooth fairy - as if, having being presented with ALL the facts and possible avenues of religious belief, these women have "chosen" Islam and subsequently the veil.

Yes, within the religious framework that they believe in, they have made a choice. But that's not a genuine choice by any means. Faith wasn't introduced to these women when they were critically-minded adults free to make their own choice. It was, rather, introduced to them as it was to the overwhelming majority of people who practise any faith, at a very young age - an age when you are still "Santa-elligible" (Stanhope).

Put simply, I doubt there is an equal number of atheists wandering around Paris wearing a niqab as there are Muslim women (perhaps if there were then we would have cause to reconsider the constitutionality of the recent vote). That's because, free of any religious influence or doctrine, almost without exception, NO man or women would choose to hide his or her face in public, perhaps with the exception of the late great Michael Jackson and that chick whose face was ripped off by a monkey last year.

So again, what "choice" has been made? At best, a choice made under the heavy influence of doctrine introduced when they had no choice. I've learnt Japanese to a decent level, so I can choose to speak Japanese if I want to. But that does not therefore imply that everyone in England is speaking English out of "choice". Nothing introduced to you at birth is.

And finally as to the constitutionality of this policy; you'll note earlier I (very deliberately) wrote "NO man or women would choose to hide his or her face in public". Men and women. If this were truly a matter of constitution, the French vote would have included a ruling over men wearing veils as well. But it didn't precisely because it is in reaction, not to a civil convention, but rather to a religious practice that, almost a priori, treats women differently.

If there were a belief that women ought to stay in doors (I'm sure some cult somewhere might believe that), having a vote on whether or not women should follow this law out of choice would simply be treating the symptoms and not the cause. The real issue here is the differentiation between men a women, which is, of course, unconstitutional.

As open-minded as I wish I could be, I just can't accept religious faith as an acceptable basis for creating one set of rules for men and another for women, even if those rules are out of "choice". I can accept biological reasons, but not faith-based reasoning (isn't that an oxymoron?) introduced from birth.

If the French wanted to be rid of the veil in a more agreeable fashion, they should ban the introduction of religion before the age of consent, which IS unconstitutional. Then, out of real choice, I'm sure you would see the number of veils being worn reduced to almost zero within a generation.

---------------

These are my opinions: I'm open to discussion, just don't get all offended just because I criticise something that's precious to you. It's not precious to me. I'm not sure why. Blame God for making me an atheist.

Comedy Progress

The best of intentions


Having been gigging in Tokyo for around a year, I was struck by how few opportunities there were to perform in a city as large as The Big Toke. Not only that, but it seemed that the performance conditions were a little stifling; there was a heap of potential talent that couldn't move up as there were already enough regulars doing well, and so the newbies would perform 3 minutes time and time again without much potential to move upwards. That's not a criticism of the way things were run - it's just a logical necessity that, given the small number of comedy nights and the sheer number of acts, finding enough stage time to get them all progressing quickly just won't happen.


I personally felt a bit restricted, as my act just doesn't translate into a 3 minute "bit". My comedy "bits" (juvenile chuckle) meander and last a long time, and often reference back to a previous bit of material. But in 3 minutes, there's no "previous" to refer back to. You're on, you're off.


As such, I found myself wanting to get another gig going in Tokyo, just to spread the acts around, give people more time on stage, and thus help to end what, appeared to me, to be a kind of stagnating swamp of talent going to waste. I got chatting to a friend, and we both agreed that we wanted people to be on stage more often doing a bit longer, so we set about finding a venue, spurred on by an encouraging email from the organisers of the current comedy events which said "Feel free to go ahead and organise your own comedy nights." And verily, we did...


The Pink Cow

The search for a venue didn't take long. Scouring the gaijin papers and magazines for venues that seemed to frequently hold intriguing events, one name kept popping up again and again: The Pink Cow. It was holding photography nights, art nights, sketch classes, movie nights; everything except a comedy night. I sent Traci (the owner, one of the most creative, helpful, artistic and genuine people I've ever met, and a human answer to renewable energy - she never seems to stop) an email, and within two days there was an answer; a resounding, very positive "Yes, let's make this happen."

Given the horror stories we'd heard about not being able to find venues ("You'll be lucky if you find someone who's willing to rent out some gravel for you to perform on" someone almost said to me once), I was surprised that we got such a positive response, and so quickly. And on top of that, the venue was a real surprise - big, brimming with atmosphere - the kind of place that would get created if Hunter S. Thompson got together with Janis Joplin.... or something. The shape of the place is sometimes problematic in terms of line of sight for the stage, but nonetheless, it's a feel-good venue that's good for comedy.

Was it something I said?

I won't go into details here, because I'm nice, but sufficed to say, no sooner had we secured a venue and let everyone in the comedic community (which doesn't exist - a community requires at least more than ONE component) know about what we were doing, than we started getting bizarre trickles of feedback from performers currently on the scene. Established acts, who we expected would be thrilled at having a new opportunity to try out their stuff, told us they wouldn't perform at the show. Pressure was coming from somewhere higher up, persuading them not to perform at our show, and it was working.

We had meetings with the relevant people (the organisers of the other comedy nights who were exerting the pressure on other acts not to perform), who, after hearing our motives and goals, totally retracted their somewhat monopolistic attitude, only for us to have another meeting later on where this retraction was retracted, without any logical reason. It was confusing to say the least. But then finally, after we had one show under our belt, an email was sent out to, I have no doubt, every act currently performing on the circuit, and it was bad. By bad I mean it was a dirty play, but also in terms of a piece of writing it was terrible; self-contradictory to the point of hilarity, while also achieving a new low in below-the-belt, immature pettiness. I was extremely saddened, frustrated (I couldn't reply in kind as it was THEIR mailing list) and utterly disappointed.

I have delt with about 40-50 comedy promoters in the past. They have all been supportive of acts, but also of each other's venues, and of the idea of a comedy "scene" rather than some sort of ridiculous turf warfare. Any one of them over here in Tokyo would have created a fantastic comedy community by now, but instead the potential fate of any aspiring act in this massive, very massive city, is currently in the hands of spoilt children in adult costumes. It's genuinely heart-breaking to see something as great as comedy being reduced to territorial battles and name-calling. What first started out as a perfectly innocent idea between friends fast became an unnecessary chore as we tried to focus on getting the night organised while simultaneously handling the irrelevant nuisance created by people who just have no idea.

Bah... balls to them!

Well, despite the unwanted distraction of a couple of poo-pooers, the night went ahead, and we are now currently 3 shows in. Ticket sales have been good, and have actually gone up from the first show, which is a great thing. I've heard that the third show is always the indicator of how things are going, and if that is so, then our show has got some serious legs on it.

But most importantly, more than ticket sales which mean nothing (Dane Cook can fill stadiums, whereas Stewart Lee goes for intimate bar gigs), we've given more stage time to newer acts, giving them a chance to develop. Some acts who were originally taking notes on stage, are now getting on and performing longer than they did before and with no notes at all. That's thanks to having an extra opportunity to perform, at a decent venue, with a good crowd.

And if we made just one act better, then all of the stress and unnecessary bad-mouthing was worth it. So, as much as I'd like to pat myself on the back for sticking this through, it's the acts you have to give it up to, because without them, there's no show. There's no territory, no "big fish" in a "small pond", and there's certainly no town that's too small for the both of us. There're only two sides to this; the people behind the microphone and the audience.

Peace!