Google
 
Web www.culturekitchen.com

April 11, 2005

Privacy Manifesto
by Lorraine Berry

I, Lorraine Berry, assert my right to privacy as a basic human right that I will not allow to be compromised by my political party, which has allowed notions of privacy to be hijacked by those who call them 'moral' values.

We are allowing ourselves to be dominated by a Republican ruling party of scolds, prudes, and control freaks, who believe, somehow, that their claim to eternal life is tied to their control of all the chaotic elements that make us human. They want to regulate in others what they consider to be sin: sin, for them, separates them from God, it is the source of suffering, it is our very humanity they seek to tame and take away. Why? Well, because I am prone to meta-explanations, I would argue that they’re seriously afraid of death, and think, somehow, if they control other people's behaviours, they won’t have to die. I know that sounds horrendously illogical. But I'd like you to think about it.

Bernardino da Siena, the Franciscan Observant preacher, went from town to town in the 1420's, warning inhabitants of each of the towns he visited that those who tolerated sin within their city walls would be punished by God for allowing that sin to exist. "So will I destroy the cities" is foretold in the Book of Malachi, and so it would be for Christians, thundered Bernardino to his flocks. Who did he urge them to root out? Sodomites. Usurers. Witches. Later in the century, fellow Franciscan Observants such as Bernardino da Feltre would add Jews to this list.

The fifteenth century bears strange similarities to our own century. The greatest threat to Christian Europe was the Turk, Muslims, who, it was thought, would overrun Christian Europe, slaughtering the men, making women their concubines. In absolute terror that the advancing Turks were the scourge inflicted on Christians by an angry God, communities looked inward for their enemies, and started offering up their friends and neighbors for private acts that were seen as publicly dangerous. Sometimes, I don't think that rhetoric sounds any different than what we hear coming from right-wing pundits and preachers. We're marching lock-step back into the Dark Ages.

So, here's how I intend to counteract the attacks on privacy. Perhaps if enough of us were to do it, we can change the nature of the debate. This is not about moral values. This is about insecure people hoping to somehow gain eternal life by destroying the lives of others.

So, the next time someone calls abortion a moral choice, I will ask him the results of his last prostate exam, or her the results of her pelvic exam. I expect they'll tell me it's none of my business. To which I'll reply, "exactly."

The next time someone argues against gay marriage, I’ll ask him or her when the last time he or she made love with their spouse. I expect they’ll tell me it’s none of my business. To which I’ll reply, "exactly."

The next time somebody defends pharmacists refusing to dispense birth control pills, I'll ask them what prescription medicines they are currently taking. I expect they’ll tell me it’s none of my business. To which I'll reply, "exactly."

The next time someone says that Terri Schiavo was murdered, I'll ask them if they've made arrangements for a local government official to be in their loved one's hospital room making final decisions. I expect they'll tell me it's none of my business. To which I’ll reply, "exactly."


The next time some legislator proposes banning sex toys, I'll ask them what method of masturbation they prefer. I expect they'll tell me it's none of my business. To which I'll reply, "exactly."

The next time someone talks about family values, I'll ask them to tell me what the last thing they disciplined their child over. I expect they'll tell me it's none of my business. To which I'll reply, "exactly."

We cannot allow our panic at being out of power to lead us to separate abortion rights, gay rights, end-of-life-decision rights, parenting rights, medical rights from the basic human right to live free of someone else butting their nose into our personal lives.

We need to explain that even if they could live in their perfect world where human beings lived the types of lives that the moral scolds imagine, the moral scolds are still going to die. If they control everything, they're still going to die. It is the ultimate form of addiction to think that if you control-freak yourself all over other people, you can be happy. But it doesn't work for addicts, it won't work for them, and it makes the rest us pretty fucking miserable. Can we please stop enabling the control freaks? Please?

Posted by in Activism, Body, Christian Fundamentalism, Democrats, Feminism, Liberalism, Sexual Politics
Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBack (1) | Technorati Cosmos





Trackbacks

Trackback for this post:
http://www.culturekitchen.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/2876

The following blogs make reference to this post :

» Nunya Business from feministe
I can't help but quote this piece at length: The next time someone calls abortion a moral choice, I will ask him the results of his last prostate exam, or her the results of her pelvic exam. I expect they'll tell me it's none of my business. To which ... [More...]

Found inApril 11, 2005 02:05 PM


Say it loud, say it proud!

1

Comment by: spyder at April 11, 2005 02:28 PM

Thank you ever so much. Indeed, it is pathologically perverse of these self-annointed social conservatives(a poor term in so many ways) to assume they, and only they, know what is best for humankind. In their insane efforts to protect and serve the imaginary, they make life a miserable living hell for those who perceive reality factually, objectively, humanly.

 

2

Comment by: Tex at April 11, 2005 06:00 PM

Such a witty post! Very well put together, and, well, I agree with pretty much all of these policies and relish the idea of making the highly moralistic feel uncomfortable, or seeing their contradictions exposed.

I have a reservation tho, and that is that privacy is not always one's friend. Domestic violence is one of those fuzzy areas where it can be a big, big problem to allow the excuse of it being a private matter. The personal is political, ya know? The reason that we can regulate the private behavior of domestic abusers is that it's dangerous and hurtful, something that a sex toy just isn't. A doctrine of harm might be more convincing for most of these things (I'll grant medical privacy since leaking that sort of information can do a whole lot of dammage) than a doctrine of privacy.

That bitchy little thing having been said, I like your comment on not splitting apart all of those things into separate, disposable issue just because we're not in power. You're dead right about that.

 

3

Comment by: bitchphd at April 11, 2005 06:29 PM

That's a good manifesta.

 

4

Comment by: Rebecca at April 12, 2005 03:22 PM

Your post is really beautiful. In fact, it inspires me to say "Exactly!"

I've quoted you in my blog, please tell me if you'd like me to alter it or take it down, I'm new to the blogscene and I'm not sure that I'm up to date on the etiquette.

Thank you for writing this.

 

5

Comment by: lorraine at April 12, 2005 03:43 PM

I'm pleased that you would quote me. Thanks!

 

6

Comment by: Holdie Lewie at April 19, 2005 09:09 AM

This is a good tactic to use against the likes of Scalia and DeLay, who assert that the Constitution doesn't guarantee a right to privacy. But Scalia surely seems to think that there is an extra-constitutional right to privacy.

 

C'mon baby, don't be shy










Remember personal info?