Adonis Diaries

Archive for October 5th, 2012

Simone Weil: No credible philosophy without active field engagement…

Simone Weil was concerned to find links between the state of Gravity (miseries, injustices, brute force, subjugation…) and the state of Grace (Justice, equitable treatment, civil rights, political rights…)  in this century of global turmoil and global wars.

How can people balance the repeated society massive submission to the power-to-be (following orders that are terribly evil) and the individual tendency to avoid harming innocent people?

Are the systematic coercive structure and violent acts of totalitarianism behind this recurring mass subjugation phenomena throughout history?

Desiring to know the truth is a yearning to be in direct touch with reality, no matter how cruel and brutal it might be. For example, if you claim to describe the conditions and represent the working class, you must be engaged in the daily work activities of the worker, and be connected to the actual working people in specific domain of productions…

Weil visited Germany in 1932 and experienced the incapacity of the German communist party to be freed from the Soviet dictate and Soviet bureaucracy.  Consequently, faced this rude reality, Weil dropped her previous revolutionary positions due to the total passive behavior of the communists in Germany.

In 1934-35, Weil took a sabbatical from teaching, and worked at the factories of Alsthom and Renault as a daily worker. She kept a diary, and she had to share the workers daily conditions and feelings on the floor-shop, if she had to talk of the working class…

In 1936, Weil was side by side with the Spanish anarchists during the civil war…

Simone Weil proclaimed to study the ancient mythologies, the metaphysical texts, the universal folkloric stories…with the same intellectual probity of attitude.  She was opposed to apartheid Zionist ideology and had harsh critics of the radical Hebraic practiced religion:

1. All that is inspired from the Old Testament by Christianity is bad…

2. The concept of Sanctity in the Church was emulated from the Sanctity notion of Israel…

3. Up until the Israelite were exiled to Babylon, not a single character in the Bible was not soiled by horrible acts…

4. Daniel was initiated to the Chaldean wise culture in captivity…

5. The Genesis is a compendium of all the Egyptian stories, transported and adapted… (including the Near-East culture)

6. Weil cannot comprehend how a reasonable mind can see similarity between Jehovah and the Father of the New Testament…

7. The mission of Israel was to acknowledge the unity of a God, without discriminating among people, culture, and the principles of Good and Evil…

8. The Hebrew attributed to God all that is considered supernatural, what is divine and what is demonic: Simply because they view their God in the angle of Power and not in the approach of what is Good and what is Evil…Viewing God of Power denies any intermediary between the believer and God, although there is no alternative to an Mediator.  Otherwise, God is emptied of divinity and is reduced to a racial and national entity that is directly accessible to anyone (with evil intentions)…

9. The ancient Egyptians and Greeks had this recognition that God is The Good. The God of the Hebrew was carnal, collective, heavy…who engaged in temporal promises.

10. Weil rejects “National God” and refuses the notion of a “Promised Land“…

Note: Simone Weil published “Gravity and Grace”, “The rooting” (L’enracinement)

A rape case in Tunisia puts the legal system on trial

 published in The National on Oct 2, 2012:

“This morning in Tunis, hundreds of activists will gather in front of a courthouse to protest. Inside the courthouse a woman and her fiance stand accused of indecency, and already two policemen already in jail on charges of raping her.

And the State of Tunisia today sees fit to judge the raped girl. That’s how activists see it.

And, despite the provocative campaign they have run, using the accusatory slogan “Rape her, then Judge her”, the implications of the case are troubling, both for how the law is applied and for gender equality in post-revolution Tunisia.

The woman, who has asked the media not to use her name, was with her fiance in a car in a Tunis suburb early last month when three police officers stopped them. According to the woman’s account, the man was then handcuffed, while she was taken to the back seat of the police car and raped by two of the officers.

She subsequently filed charges and the two policemen have been arrested and now face trial. Activists say the case is unique in Tunisia because it marks the first time a victim of rape by the police has taken the case to court.

But at the end of last month, the couple were themselves also arrested on charges of “indecency”, accused by the officers of being found in an “immoral” position when they first stopped the car.

Many Tunisians have reacted furiously, arguing that the charges are a clear attempt at intimidation.

A group of NGOs released a statement saying the case “transforms the victim into the accused” and arguing that the charge was “designed to frighten and to force the raped woman and her fiance to waive their rights”. Subsequent protests and developments in the case have been widely followed in Tunisia and abroad.

The Ministry of Interior has said the charges were brought by the magistrate, thus exonerating the government of any involvement. But the Tunisian activist Lina Ben Mhenni argues that the ministry, by giving a press conference detailing the charges, tried to “manipulate public opinion and make them forget the real scandal – the rape – by arguing that the victim and her fiance were in an indecent posture when they were arrested”.

The case reconvenes in Tunis today, and the judge is expected to rule on whether to proceed. The right course of action is clear – there is no public interest in prosecuting the couple. They should be set free.

At the root of this case is a narrow question of the law, and a larger question of the public interest. It is the court’s duty to consider both.

The first question is whether the couple did something illegal.

Others have argued that there should be no law in Tunisia which criminalize “indecency”. That is one point of view, but a point for lawmakers and politicians. The courts merely interpret the law, and in this case prosecutors have decided that there is evidence of a crime.

But there is also a wider question and context.

This case is part of what is happening – legally, politically and socially – in post-revolution Tunisia.

Although the law stands above everyone, courts do not stand apart from society. Ultimately, courts must balance the facts of the case with whether a prosecution is required in the public interest. In this case, clearly, the prosecution deters other women from coming forward.

The social context in this case matters. There are concerns among Tunisians that, as the country moves to write a constitution and prepares for elections next year, the power of the Islamist majority is being felt widely.

Feminists have complained that police harass women over their clothing, an accusation keenly felt in a society where many fear the social freedoms gained over the past few decades could be reversed.




Blog Stats

  • 1,516,641 hits

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by

Join 822 other subscribers
%d bloggers like this: