To start with the positive, the panel opened with the question ’who are we protecting when we change and apply these consent laws?’ If we choose to modify legislation in any way, we must ensure that it is for the benefit of the minor who is meant to be protected, and not to eliminate the few barriers keeping predatory adults from taking advantage of vulnerable children and adolescents. We cannot overlook the power imbalance in such a relationship. If we are to accept sexual expression among minors, should it only take place within the peer group where everyone is experiencing the same wants and needs? Or should this not be allowed at all?

An audience member contributed with a psychological point of view, stating that psychologists have found that children are sexual beings from a very young age, and that rather than forbidding it, parents should be taught to put aside their embarrassment and seek to educate their children on the subject in an age appropriate manner. The panel stressed the importance of the role of behavioural science in the decision-making process, claiming that the legal aspect is “there just to amend what we need in our changing society trends.” Our law needs to acknowledge the reality of today instead of clinging to old hat mentalities, and therefore needs to be modified accordingly.

At the start of the debate, however, a panellist announced that he could speak for everyone present when he said that “we are completely against casual sex”. Not only did this seem awfully one-sided, but also anyone in the audience could have been gravely offended by that comment. Nowadays, there is such a wide spectrum of issues people could be dealing with that we cannot possibly presume to judge. Perhaps they had been pressured into having sex, or maybe sex is being used as a coping mechanism. Maybe they made some choices when they were younger which they’ve come to regret now. Or it is very possible that they are not ashamed of it at all as they harbour different views from the panellists, having come from different backgrounds. Whether or not sexual intercourse takes place within a relationship, the issues of sexual health and consent still apply. This comment was therefore not only potentially insensitive and uncalled for but also for the most part unnecessary.

Some also took issue with the fact that one of the panelists in Parliament was present for the sole purpose of representing the Catholic church. Had he attended the debate as an individual to express his own personal opinion, even if it coincided with that of the church, it would have been perfectly acceptable. The issue of sexuality ultimately touches upon human rights and therefore applies to human beings, something which the church as an institution, incidentally, is not. Yes, the church is composed of human beings, but nobody is depriving them of the right to voice their own opinion as citizens who will be affected by national legislation. It seems rather counterproductive to have people represent the ideology of an institution rather than the other way around, especially when that institution harbours religious beliefs which are not representative of the whole Maltese population (or the Catholic one at that, since many Christians still hold differing views on various topics). How can we then claim to be a secularised state when we allow a religion to enter into a parliamentary debate with the aim of affecting national legislation?

That said, the panel reassured the audience that much deliberation was involved regarding the age of consent for queer people and the general consensus was that it should not be any different from that of heterosexual relationships. When asked about the recent issue involving the rejection of material educating children about queer relationships, the panel was of the opinion that parents should have been consulted beforehand. As valid as this view may be, one may question whether the rights of LGBT+ children and adolescents are being given any importance. While teaching tolerance is a key stepping stone, it is also important to teach queer children to accept themselves and not focus solely on the sexual health of heterosexual people.

WHO defines sexual health as “a state of physical, mental and social well-being in relation to sexuality. It requires a positive and respectful approach to sexuality and sexual relationships, as well as the possibility of having pleasurable and safe sexual experiences, free of coercion, discrimination and violence.” As was discussed during the debate, it is imperative that a taboo approach towards sexuality must be abandoned and that youths are taught the all-encompassing truth about sexual health, including the mental and emotional aspect as well as methods of contraception other than just abstinence. This need for an improvement in our sexual education system is becoming ever more apparent especially if the age of consent is to be lowered. We cannot keep children in the dark in a futile attempt to shelter them from their surroundings and then expect them to adopt a healthy approach towards sexuality later in life.

The post Debate on Sexual Health and the Age of Consent appeared first on The Third Eye.

Upon hearing the news, many were thrilled that California had banned this ridiculous defence from being used in court, but also began to question why in the hell this defence ever existed in the first place. Most people had never previously heard of its existence and, leading the relatively sheltered and privileged life that I did, I was no exception. In fact, I did not learn about it until a few days ago when one of my American friends posted about it on Facebook. Curious to know more, I began searching through various sources to find out where this sorry excuse for a defence is still recognised today. Aside from known cases in America and New Zealand, gay and trans panic are also still considered legitimate murder defences in Queensland and South Australia.

“In fact, Mr Parsons was executed after having lost the case.”

In 1987 in the US, Joseph Mitchell Parsons, who by the way nicknamed himself the “Rainbow Warrior” (not an embarrassing title at all), insisted that he murdered Richard Lynn Ernest as a form of self defence against an unwanted homosexual advance (because a name like “Rainbow Warrior” must attract countless suitors). However, no evidence could be provided to support this claim during his trial. Witnesses later testified that Parsons had in fact previously voluntarily engaged in homosexual activity while a forensic psychiatrist from the University of Utah concluded that it was highly likely that the defendant was in fact the one making unwanted advances and became violent when rejected. In this case, the defence was not only illogical but also completely unfounded. In fact, Mr Parsons was executed after having lost the case. But this begs the question of how many lies like this one went unnoticed, allowing an abuser to make false claims about their victim to save their own skin.

In July 2009 in New Zealand, Ferdinand Ambach was prosecuted for killing Ronald Brown by not only hitting him with a banjo, but also proceeding to shove its neck down Brown’s throat. Having originally been convicted of murder, he was finally charged only with manslaughter when his lawyer made him plead the gay panic defence. One cannot but wonder whether, even if this had been a legitimate excuse for self-defence, resorting to such creative methods of torture was not overly-sadistic and unneeded once the necessary defensive attack was over.

Even more recently, a transgender woman named Jennifer Laude was killed in the Philippines in 2014 by a US Marine, who claimed that he had been unaware that Laude was transgender. This has sparked outrage in the Philippines and protests by transgender rights activists are still ongoing.

“The word ‘panic’ as well as ‘phobia’ in ‘homophobia’ and ‘transphobia’ are terribly misleading, suggesting a genuine fear of another human being rather than hatred based on prejudice.”

I have never heard of a defence that needs to be defended, but here it is. People have tried to justify it by claiming that a homophobic person should not be held accountable for their actions when faced with the subject of their phobia. And in here lies the problem. The word ‘panic’ as well as ‘phobia’ in ‘homophobia’ and ‘transphobia’ are terribly misleading, suggesting a genuine fear of another human being rather than hatred based on prejudice. When a homophobe is faced with an LGBTQ+ member, they do not run for the hills as I would when faced with, say, a venomous snake. Rather, they react with anger and loathing strong enough to overpower the often vulnerable victim to the point where it is absurd to suggest that the aggressor was ever under any risk of harm. Even in cases where fear serves as a catalyst for violence, such as when I kill an insect, I have never felt the need to resort to torture and other unnecessary measures after having defended myself.

This is all irrelevant when we remind ourselves that people should not be likened to objects or animals in the first place and have rights enforceable against the aggressor. I can’t believe that in 2015, we still have to clarify that homophobia is no excuse for violence and under no circumstances should someone be allowed to harm another human being unless he poses a significant and real threat. And if someone out there actually has a genuine debilitating fear of another human being simply because they are gay or trans, then shouldn’t that person receive psychiatric attention rather than be allowed to harm an innocent human being? When will we stop blaming sufferers in order to defend criminals, especially in situations where the victim conveniently isn’t even alive to counter the murderer’s statement in court?

The post California is the First and Only State to Ban the “Gay and Trans Panic Defence” appeared first on The Third Eye.

Miley later commented on this, stating that Nicki was making too much of a big deal over the situation and that if she just worked hard enough, then she would get nominated. You may be asking yourself why I care so much about this seemingly insignificant gossip, however, it is not so much the Hollywood stars themselves that interest me, but rather how the media and their fans have responded to the issue over the past month and the implications of this reaction.

In her compelling speech ‘The Sociology of Gossip’, Canadian reporter Elaine Liu explained how gossip and tabloid news could be used as a window for the observation of social culture and behaviour since when we gossip, we cannot do so without “filtering it through the prism of our own experience”. Remarks and reactions to popular gossip are therefore an undeniable “reflection of popular morals and ethics of that time” as they help researchers to understand society’s attitudes towards a wide variety of pressing issues.

Liu maintains that tabloid news is not a new phenomenon, directing her audience to various examples such as Egyptian hieroglyphics, suggesting that an ancient king was having an affair with one of his army generals. So what will future anthropologists extract from today’s attitudes towards current celebrity gossip, and how will that reflect on our society’s values and mentality in a few hundred years’ time?

As someone whose attitude has been more or less neutral towards Miley Cyrus, friends have asked me why I’ve suddenly taken a dislike to her. Firstly, the media did not fail to live up to my low expectations, with many online articles choosing specific freeze frames portraying Nicki as simply “an angry black woman”, rather than an artist who was frustrated at what she perceived as racism within the music industry.

Moreover, the differing opinions of these two celebrities were trivialised and watered down to a Twilight-esque “Team Miley versus Team Nicki”, all the while portraying them as simpletons with a proclivity for shallow drama and nothing more, completely ignoring the issue at hand. Whether or not Nicki Minaj’s claims and accusations were unfounded seems irrelevant to me. In my opinion, it was not Miley’s place as a white woman to completely dismiss Minaj’s concerns since she cannot possibly know the struggle of a person who has had to deal with prejudice against minorities. That’s not to say that nobody has their own obstacles to deal with, however Miley failed to take into account the socioeconomic imbalance between herself and Minaj, and the fact that should the claims of racism be true, one cannot simply reduce a celebrity’s success to perseverance. Neither should we forget that Miley had the advantage of being thrown into stardom at an early age since her father Billy Ray Cyrus had already made his mark in Hollywood. This means that with regards to race and background, Minaj would have had to work twice as hard in order to arrive at the same level of success as her more socially privileged contemporaries.

What bothers me is that Miley Cyrus has in recent months been paraded as an ideal model for feminism, something which I never felt the need to dispute until the events of the VMAs. She has indeed been actively speaking in favour of equal treatment between men and women, however, when speaking about feminism we cannot neglect to acknowledge the varying struggles faced by racial and religious minorities, women of a lower socioeconomic background and queer and transgender women. These are all factors which must be taken into account when promoting women’s rights as these seemingly separate issues are actually intertwined and must therefore go hand in hand. Of all the eye-rolls directed towards the feminist movement over the years, one of the few criticisms I am willing to agree with is the fact that some feminists fall into the trap of advocating only white women’s rights, forgetting about minority women and neglecting to provide them with a voice to express their individual concerns.

As reporter Elaine Liu suggested, this piece of seemingly petty drama may provide insight into not only racism in modern western society, but also the possible need for a re-evaluation of modern gender equality movements. So Miley, if you personally feel that hashtagging #FreetheNipple is an adequate course of action in your feminist movement, by all means do so, but the moment you refuse to acknowledge the intersectionality within feminism itself, you are leaving a large percentage of your fellow females behind. If you only cater to the needs of white women and seek to dismiss or silence minorities, you cannot endeavour to call yourself a feminist. Simple as that.

The post White Feminism, What’s Good? appeared first on The Third Eye.