So,
I went across the road to have glass of Rioja. The café I first
chose had a prominent No Smoking sign was but was, ironically,
engulfed in fumes from the incense seller's stall just outside.
Having had enough of this as an (unmolested!) altar-boy, I repaired
to another place.
Going
round the Palacio de Pilatos, I was surprised that the guy
doing the English guide hadn't been taught how to get his mouth round
Mudéjar. And that his female companion had clearly never seen
the word oligarchy before and also had a bizarre view of how
media is pronounced. What made this particularly hard to
understand is that, apart from these words, they both had immaculate
BBC accents. And the script was perfect but for its use of 'ignore'
in the following sentence:- "We ignore [meaning 'don't know]
where the original palace was built." In my experience, only a
few Dutchmen still use this archaic construction.
There
are street performers and street performers and regular readers will
know of my disdain for some of those who afflict us in Pontevedra.
But last night I had the pleasure of listening to a violinist and
cellist perform Bruch's violin concerto in the barrio of
Triana, albeit in competition with some flamenco clapping down the road.
Sevilla
is a beautiful city and I will return soon to do it more justice. No
firm conclusion is yet possible but I remain unconvinced that its
women are the prettiest in Spain. As for the oranges . . . well, I
don't like marmalade.
Finally
. . . . I do now have a definition for both 'muntered' and
'muntering'.
Muntered
means: Inebriated, intoxicated or
otherwise chemically inconvenienced. Often associated with the
consumption of Ecstasy/MDMA, moreso in combination with other
intoxicants.
And
Muntering
means something you probably don't want to know. So only read on if
you're of a very strong disposition:-
A sexual act involving a corpse.
One puts one's penis in the mouth of a corpse while a friend stamps
on its stomach so that the entrails rise up and massage your phallus.
Quite
how these words are connected, I can only speculate. Both of them are
way beyond any experience of mine. I'm pleased to say.
Finally,
finally . . . A letter in yesterday's El
País
on the subject of the retrogressive revision of the abortion law:
I
write with a deep sense of outrage at the announcement of the new law
to regulate abortion. Not only because of the real problems this
future law may pose for thousands of women but because once again the
Catholic Church in this country is trying to impose its moral rules
on all Spaniards, this time courtesy of the once "centrist"
Alberto Ruiz-Gallardón.
The
new law is based on an argument that the constitutional rights of a
fetus are equivalent to those of a child, which implies that the life
of the fetus should be protected as much as that of child, above the
the mother's right to decide. While it's hard for me think of a fetus
of a few weeks as a human being with constitutional rights (that's
why I believe in a law based on science and not morals), this could
be a valid argument. But it's clearly false. I argue that what is
behind this law is the imposition of Catholic moral standards, under
which is sex is considered a sin if it is not for reproductive
purposes.
Under
Gallardón's law, one of the cases in which the mother may decide to
terminate the pregnancy is if it is the result of rape. But have we
not equated the rights of the fetus with a child ? Does this mean
that a child which is the product of a rape has no right to life?
Obviously, not. The reason that a raped woman is allowed to abort is
because, unlike others, she has not committed "the sin of
fornication" but has been the victim of a rape. That's to say
she's not "at fault " and so is granted the "grace"
of being able to decide about her pregnancy.
Mr.
Gallardón and fellow defenders of Catholic morals, I deeply respect
your moral standards. Don't have abortions; don't fornicate. But
please, leave the rest of us alone.
Ramón
Fernández Sestelo. Ponteareas, Pontevedra.
No comments:
Post a Comment