Mens role in promoting gender equality

Going on what others having been saying, and the TED talk by  Katz. I truly believe that Katz was correct by saying that when people think of gender equality, they often are only thinking of promoting equal rights for women.  However gender refers to both men and women, people often think women when they hear the word gender. This is the same way in which people hear sexual orientation they often think homosexuality, we don’t often hear people describing heterosexuality as a sexual orientation.

I do believe that men are pivotal to promoting gender equality between men and women. In many cases pivotal in ways that women cannot be, “locker room chat” and “guy talk ” are areas in women would have a harder time to confront. When a man hears degrading talk about women it must be addressed there and then, this is not as easily done however in a dominant masculine society. As Katz mentioned in their TED talk.Men must be made to feel that they must not act controlling so as they will not be controlling. This is not only controlling towards women but towards other men also. The majority of abuse against men is of course by other men, the road to gender equality is not only aiding women but men also, hence equality.

Men can make progress in a number of ways, most notably the workplace. Take parental leave, for example, the majority of men do not take it, even when offered.

“Not only do too few companies consider extending paid leave to new fathers, when they do, men rarely take advantage of the entire leave. While a 2011 study of men at large companies found that approximately 85% of new fathers take some time off after the birth of a child, the vast majority of them only took off a week or two. And a study of 2011 study of college professors found that only 12% of fathers took paid parental leave when it was offered, compared with 69% of mothers.”

This not only perpetuates the idea that it should only be women who should take maternal leave but also stops other men from the possibility of spending more time with their children, even if they wanted to. They may feel that they may be “emasculated”. This can also hold women back from career progression in a number of ways. Employers may feel that they would give a promotion to a man over a woman because she has the possibility of taking maternity leave and he would not. Paternal leave is just one of a number of ways on how men can help promote gender equality in the workplace.

As for the people claiming that feminists are anti-men, these quite often are not people who are trying to promote gender equality. Feminists, real feminist are trying to promote gender equality and not female superiority. These are entirely different ideas and yet are so strangely often confused. More often than not it may be a struggle for power, male patriarchs feel that some feminists are gaining power for themselves and social change and therefore will lose some of their own power.  This is true, power does not dissipate but rather changes directions. In this way, it would flow towards women, not threatening men but rather make them equal. As women progress towards gender equality men are aided also as they are becoming more who they are and not what society has told them to be.

Human by Yann Arthurs-Bertrand

For anyone who has not seen this life-affirming piece simply must, it is breathtaking.I have watched it a few times now and have used it as a tool for many of the projects that  I have given to my students. It was the first movie to premiere in the General Assembly Hall of the United Nations, to an audience of 1,000 viewers, including the Un Secretary General Baan Ki-Moon.

The film was financed by the Bettencourt Schueller Foundation, which gave it rights-free to the GoodPlanetFoundation, responsible for driving the project. An extended version of the film is officially freely available on YouTube (in three parts)

18.jpg

It covers a range of topics such as war, family homosexuality, religion, ambition and failure. It is beautiful to watch as the film is almost exclusively composed of first-person and aerial shots .By watching it you too may get a sense of what it means to be “Human”.

Human the website available at http://www.human-themovie.org/ [Accessed 6/12/16]

 

main_1500.jpg

Human movie playlist, introduction plus part 1, 2 and 3 available at:https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLEgA6bEeal3yh19xRhfVt5q5xBohcPYz7&v=qUWrdnbOEOQ

581246024.jpg

Leave no one behind, made with clips from Human available at:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhsSQZGDF1E

Power, and how it is used for facilitating social change

 

As the title suggest this will be a contribution to the following statement “when it comes to understanding power and movements for change, it’s important to think of power not only in terms of the powerful forces that movements are trying to disrupt or oppose or overthrow but also in terms of the power that individuals (like Ron Finley) and groups take for themselves (claim or mobilise) in order to create alternatives”. It will start by giving examples of the kind of power available to groups and individuals and how they can harness it. The paper will then move on to leadership amongst movements and how leadership is important and how they help make agency possible through expressions of power. The paper will then give examples how groups claim power for themselves and challenge ‘power over’. Finally to conclude the paper will show how important power is for movements of change and how we need to not only think of power “as being  defined only in negative terms, and as a form of domination, but it can also be a positive force for individual and collective capacity to act for change”. Lisa VeneKlasen and Valeries Miller in A New Weave of Power (2002, page 55)

 

Examples of power

There are four expressions of power, this is a brief explanation

Power Over

This is the most common expression of power, it if often seen as only as win or lose and nothing else. It has many negative associations for people, such as repression, force, coercion, discrimination, corruption, and abuse. With ‘power over’ it means taking it from someone, dominating and preventing other from obtaining it. This is not only seen being used by ‘powerful groups’ but ‘powerless groups’ also use this form of power’. Marginalized groups often, when they gain power imitate those who once dominated them by their use of ‘power over’

Power With

This is where people find common ground and work together to make change. ‘Power with’ bridges across different interests to transform or reduce social conflict and promote equitable relations.

Power To

‘Power to’ highlights the potential of every person. It makes it possible for joint action in conjunction with ‘power with’

Power within

‘Power within’ has to do with a person’s sense of hope, their sense worth and that they themselves can actually make a difference.

Powercube.net, expressions of power (http://www.powercube.net/other-forms-of-power/expressions-of-power/)

Leadership amongst movement for change

Leadership is important for social movements in a myriad of ways. It can be said that “social movement leaders mobilize the emotions that make agency possible”(Ganz,Leading change,Harvard Press 2010).As shown above through forms of power, relationships are paramount in social movements. Leadership can be seen as a key instrument to forming these relationships. This does not mean that there is one person ‘in charge’ or who takes ‘control’ but is rather a person who organizes “by identifying, recruiting and developing leadership on all levels. This leadership forges a primary source of social movement power.” (Ganz,Leading change,Harvard Press 2010).

How Groups claim power for themselves and challenge ‘power over’

It is possible to challenge ‘power over’ by using ‘power to’, ‘power with’ and ‘power within’. It is entirely possible for any group or movement to challenge the ‘powers that be’ and ‘power over’. We have seen examples throughout history and even now we see it on a daily basis. The key word here is challenge, not that people are always successful, but ‘power over’ is in fact challenged. An example is the ‘Arab Spring ‘These were a series of protest that spread throughout the Middle-East mostly aimed at the ageing Arab dictatorships amongst a variety of other social issues. These countries did not decide to protest together at the same time but rather it was an incendiary effect due to their homogeneous ideals. Some deemed these protest a failure, this is due to the fact that they did not overthrow the numerous authoritarian regimes that governed them. They truly utilized ‘power to’ and ‘power within’ by believing it was possible for social change in the Middle East. They also used ‘power with’ by following and inspiring each other in similar ways.

Rather I believe they were a catalyst for change in a different sense. It is difficult to over throw decades of corrupt rule. They have slowly paved the way for more elected officials and more transparent governing powers however. The Arab spring also inspired other movements such as the Occupy movement. This movement started in 2011 also, starting to challenge mainly the inequalities faced by the majority of Americans. They have taken the trademark “We are the 99%”(Occupy.net,20110, this is to reflect the fact that they represent the economic inequality faced by 99% of the American people. Since then it has taken hold and spread to every continent of the world .Not unlike the French revolution in the 18th century, where similarly there was economic inequality as the “top” tier of society paid no taxes at all. It ended with the ’99%’ creating their own constitution.

 

It’’s important to take note of some important movements happening in the world right now. Such as the Dakota pipeline protests also known as (and hashtagged) the NoDAPL movement. This is a movement that has attracted huge amounts of support (not enough from mainstream media) and has been tagged and shared worldwide. I think this is a great example of how movements are able to grow and flourish in the digital age. Even if they are not shown or even represented in any forms by some major news stations, they can still receive tremendous amounts of backing. This truly shows how media is an imperative tool in the use of any successful movement now and empowers all to make change.

 

To conclude, this paper has shown how power has changed over time. It is possible now more than ever to challenge ‘power over’ thanks to the use of social media and other platforms that were not available before. Social movements are now able to help each other on a global scale and more importantly believe that they can in fact implement social change.

 

 

Social movements are purposeful, organized groups striving to work toward a common goal. These groups might be attempting to create change (Occupy Wall Street, Arab Spring), to resist change (anti-globalization movement), or to provide a political voice to those otherwise disenfranchised (civil rights movements). Social movements create social change.

 

 

 

 

‘Muslim Headscarf’ Ban 2004

Introduction

 

In 2004, a law banning the wearing of Muslim headscarves came into force in France and has proved very controversial. This will be an analysis of the embargo and the response of the French government to the issue of the wearing of the Muslim headscarf. This will also touch upon why women wear Muslims headscarves and the empowerment and disempowerment that comes with wearing one.

 

 

The Headscarves

 

 

The scarves that women who follow the Islamic faith come in a myriad of styles and colours The word hijab comes from the Arabic for the veil and is used to describe the headscarves worn by Muslim women. The type most commonly worn in the West is a square scarf that covers the head and neck but leaves the face clear. There is also the al-amira which comes in two pieces. The first part is a knitted cap and comes with a tube-like scarf. The Shayla is popular in the Gulf region; it is one long rectangular scarf. It is then tucked in or pinned at the shoulders. The Khimar is long and cape-like, it hangs down until it reaches the wait, completely covering the hair and shoulders, but the face is clear. The Chador is similar but does, however, cover the whole body not only to the waist but does again leave the face clear. The niqab is like the chador but does cover the face also leaving only the eyes clear. Finally, there is the Burka which covers the body and faces entirely leaving only a screen to see through.

 

The feeling of empowerment

 

There have been people criticising women wearing hijabs for decades. Some would even describe it as a symbol of ‘oppression in a patriarchal society’. Many Muslims including women disagree with this train of thought and rather believe that wearing a hijab is not only a symbol of their religious values but also ties in with their strong sense of cultural identity. Many followers of the Islamic faith believe that a hijab can, in fact, be empowering for a woman.Safiya a Muslim woman living in Canada said:

“The one thing I don’t understand is why people assume hijab/niqab is a symbol of oppression. Never once in my life have I been told to wear the hijab. For me, it has always been part of my life growing up, and every morning when I see myself in the mirror, it makes me happy because I decided that I wanted to wear the hijab.

When I wear my hijab it makes me feel confident, I feel like myself, this is how I have always been. But this isn’t how the majority of the world looks upon the hijab. We live in a strange society where walking around half naked is acceptable but being modest and covering up is frowned upon.

Not only this but also the fact that forcing a woman not to wear what she likes is OK when clearly it is oppression itself. How hypocritical is the French government.”

[Safiya in Canada,2015]

 

A study into female empowerment for Muslim women in America by Anderson Beckmann Al Wazni in 2015 found that:

“Regardless of whatever outright or assumed discrimination participants faced, all of them ultimately identified as feeling very much empowered, and that Islam as a religion was the source of their rights and power as a woman. At some point in the interview, every single participant stated that the hijab gave them a sense of respect, dignity, and control over who has access to their physical body. All members felt that this, in turn, offered them security, self-confidence, and empowerment

.[Al wazni, Oxford Academic social work]

There has been quantifying research showing the emancipation of women according to Mussaps research 2009:

” Quantitative study surveyed Australian women and found that those who follow the Islamic faith and wear hijab were not necessarily any less likely to compare their bodies to the body ideals produced in the media, but that the hijab did offer protection by “buffering against appearance-based public scrutiny (through adoption of traditional clothing) and by insulating her from exposure to Western ideals (by discouraging consumption of body-centric media)”

[Mussap Quantitive study, Muslim women in America 2009]

 

 

Disempowerment

 

Not all Muslim women agree that wearing a Hijab empowers them but find it to be disempowering and are in fact a symbol of oppression.

“For many the hijab, along with the dehumanising niqab and burqa, are symbols of oppression, not some national costume to be worn for kicks and giggles.

Somalian-born author and activist, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, describes Muslim headscarves as a means in which a deeply patriarchal culture oppresses women.

“The veil deliberately marks women as private and restricted property, non-persons,” she said.

“The veil sets women apart from men and apart from the world; it restrains them, confines them, grooms them for docility.

“It is the mark of a kind of apartheid, not the domination of a race but of sex.”

Just how is social cohesion advanced by these ludicrous proposals?

As someone from a Middle Eastern background, I’ve seen first-hand the pressure on girls to obey their devout parents as well as their community’s wishes regarding how they dress.

That pressure to conform can be overwhelming.

You risk not only being judged, denounced and reviled but completely ostracised.

Being a source of shame to your family for not abiding by accepted cultural practices can be traumatic for any young girl let alone one raised in cultures where she’s considered subservient to men.

 

[Rita Panahi, The Daily Telegraph, This is a symbol of oppression. Please don’t celebrate it, April 20, 2015]

This is however mostly is taken a first hand from Middle Eastern countries and not the West.

 

The French Ban

The ban in 2004 of religious symbols has been contested since its implementation. The law has been dubbed the ‘Muslim headscarf ban’.The law banned all religious symbols but was aimed at the followers of the Islamic faith. According to a Human rights watch report from February 2004:

“The proposed law is an unwarranted infringement on the right to religious practice, For many Muslims, wearing a headscarf is not only about religious expression, but it is also about religious obligation.”

[Human rights Watch report, February 2004]

Due to immigration from parts of Africa and former colonies, France has the largest Muslim population in Europe. There have been several appeals made to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), all, however, have been rejected every time.The law concerning la séparation des Églises et de l’État was passed by the chamber of deputies in 1905 and has been in effect since then. This intends to separate church and state law entirely. The law has been upheld and most recently” Loi interdict la dissimulation du visage days l’espace public was passed…it was an  act of parliament adopted by the Senate of France on 14 September 2010, resulting in the ban on the wearing of face-covering headgear, including masks, helmets, balaclavas, niqabs and other veils covering the face in public places, except under specified circumstances.”[ Allen, Peter, Daily Mail (14 September 2010).

 

Conclusion

 

The French ban has had many criticisms of the ‘Muslim Headscarf’ ban and individuals claiming that nuns and others have been allowed to wear their habit without contention. The ban has forced mostly Muslim women and girls to reveal private parts about themselves, pay fines, or being expelled from school. The ban needs to be looked at less like a ban on a piece of religious clothing but rather a part of cultural identity. It could be claimed that women have been wearing the hijab for thousands of years before Islam was even part of the Middle-East and throughout Arabic countries. The wearing of a Hijab is rather part of not only many people’s religious ideals but also cultural values. Not only it is religiously inappropriate, but culturally it would be incredibly revealing and embarrassing to many people. It is true that the ‘cultural web’ changes and adapt but not when it is forced ” There are significant structural ‘strands’ in culture such as the social, religious, economic, and political dimensions of life. They shape and define the culture and its smaller strands. All of the strands of a culture are interconnected and influence and sustain each other.” [Introduction to anthropology and culture 2012, Kimmage development studies centre]. Europe is increasingly reaping the harvest of multicultural policies that have served to divide rather than unite.Religious Identity isn’t something you can take off in public.The European Court of Justice has, in fact, turned the headscarf into a symbol of resistance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gustavo Esteva’s talk on ‘Challenging the Institutional Production of Truth’

Mexican activist Gustavo Esteva is a world renowned intellectual and is the founder of Universidad de La Tierra. He is a well-known advocate of post-development as well as being active in the Zapatista movement in Mexico which advocates the rights of indigenous people. In 2012 he gave a provocative talk on ‘Challenging the Institutional Production of Truth’ at Berkley, California. In this talk, he mentioned the “current situation”. This is as he feels is a radical situation. The radical situation he describes as “A radical situation is a moment, a period of collective awakening. Produced by two separate factors. One is a tough situation, jobs, assets, expectations are gone” (Gustavo Esteva, Berkley 2012). The second factor he described as being “With increasing evidence that the powers that be are doing, aggravate the situation, instead of solving our problems. These two factors combined produce this collective awareness.” (Gustavo Esteva, Berkley 2012).

 

The institutional Production of Truth

 

Esteva says that there is nothing more important than “challenging the institutional production of truth” Esteva mentions the “Truth not being right or wrong but the statement’s to which we burn ourselves”. This a statement which many believe in and hold real value in. Truth is universal, and it is singular. However, there are two forms of this truth.To begin with, there is the empirical truth, for example, humans need oxygen to survive. The other form of truth is truth itself, this is defined by ourselves, what we believe, what we do, the way we think.(Michael Patrick Lynch, The nature of truth, MIT press,2001) This does not mean however the truth that we know is in fact the established real truth. Esteva describes the truth that we know as being “constructed by the powers that be” and that “they decide what is right and wrong”. The Cambridge dictionary shows that “the powers that be” refers to “important people, who have power over others”. It could, however, be ascertained in this case in particular that Esteva is referring to the government or at least political bodies of the government. In a democracy, it is believed that the decisions are made democratically. Evidence against this view can be obtained from The Foundation for Economic Education (Fee.org) it states” Before a democratic process can even begin to function, some nondemocratic process has to make the rules. And those rules will have a major impact on the choices available to the people once they finally begin to have a say. “So an example of this could be shown when a legislator is voted is elected in America. When they are then elected, there is no guarantee they will adhere to what the people will truly wish of them when in power. The protest against the war in Iraq is one such instance labeled “the largest protest event in human history”(Walgrave, Stefaan; Rucht, Dieter(2010). The number of protesters accounted by the BBC ranged from eight to thirty million. All of these protests and shows of rejection were to no avail. However, nothing stopped the war in Iraq. It is true politicians are democratically elected, they do however determine the very rules in which they will stand for election.

 

Food

Esteva makes several points on food. Food is something no longer in the hands of everyday people but is in fact in the hands of larger powerful companies .He points out that “half the world is starving, the other half are scared to eat”. There are multinational super companies that control so much of the world now: Monsanto, Walmart, Nestle, and Kraft to name but a few. He talks about them having a ”moral epiphany”. It is well documented that these companies are very powerful in and amongst themselves. Coca-Cola for example is summarized by Bob Zurn(Coca-Cola: The Power of a Brand) he describes it as “showing the popularity of a soft drink as well as the dominance of American entrepreneurialism in the twentieth century and beyond.” This is simply one of many super companies that control vast amounts of industry throughout the world as can be depicted in the image below.graphic-72dpi-8x5-english_custom-e7798a240cf729589c407e5c47c5e3db515da21a-s40-c85.jpg

To Challenge the Institutional Production of Truth

As mentioned before Esteva said how important it is to “Challenge the Institutional production of Truth”. He even gives examples of some acts where people have wrought such. One such person that Esteva mentions is Pope Gregory the seventh. Esteva was a very beloved and abhorred man in his time. During the twelfth century he was a pioneer in many regards. One such example is “connected with his championship of compulsory celibacy among the clergy and his attack on simony” (Encyclopedia Britannica, Chrisholm Hugh).This was very unpopular among the clergy and he invoked widespread resistance which led ultimately to his exile. A people which Esteva also mentions is the Zapatista army of National Liberalism (EZLN) more commonly referred to as the Zapatistas. They are a revolutionary leftist group movement based in Chiapas, Mexico. Possibly there most famous act is the 1994 uprising also known as the Chiapas conflict. This is where the EZLN led an armed insurgence against the Mexican government because of the establishment of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).This agreement undermined the rights of indigenous people in Mexico. Since then the EZLN has declared war against the state and stands for social, Cultural and land rights for indigenous people. Even today they still oppose the Mexican Government.

 

maxresdefault.jpg

 

 

 

 

These were just a few and brief minor points and people mentioned by Esteva. He has apparently painted a clear picture of ‘the current situation’. It is a time when people are ruled by ‘the powers that be’ and as Esteve put it “there is a crack in the dominant mentality”. His talk gave much evidence that although many social movements have made tremendous changes throughout history, they must be started by one person. That is all that it takes, one person to make the difference. From lowly medieval peasants leading revolts against their Lord everyday individuals in the French revolution, this is what the world needs. Social change to be started by just one ordinary person.

 

Thoughts on mobilising

gettyimages-134083902

I really enjoyed Leah and Scones (2007) as it made me see mobilisation in a new light. It is such a diverse time and encompasses a variety of groups,collectives and peoples .

I think it’s important to take note of some important movements happening in the world right now. Such as the Dakota pipeline protests also known as (and hashtagged) the NoDAPL movement . This is a movement that has attracted huge amounts of support (not enough from mainstream media) and has been tagged and shared worldwide. I think this is a great example of how movements are able to grow and flourish in the digital age. Even if they are not shown or even represented in any forms by some major news stations, they can still receive tremendous amounts of backing.

It reminds me of the Arab spring in 2011. These were a series of protest that spread throughout the Middle-East mostly aimed at the ageing Arab dictatorships amongst a variety of other social issues . These countries did not  decide to protest together at the same time but rather it was an incendiary effect due to their homogeneous ideals. Some deemed these protest a failure, this is due to the fact that they did not overthrow the numerous authoritarian regimes that governed them .

Rather I believe they were a catalyst for change in a different sense. It is difficult to over throw decades of corrupt rule. They have slowly paved the way for more elected officials and more transparent governing powers however. The Arab spring also inspired other movements such as the Occupy movement. This movement started in 2011 also,starting to challenge mainly the inequalities faced by the majority of Americans. They have taken the trademark “We are the 99%” , this is to reflect the fact that they represent the economic inequality faced by 99% of the American people.Since then it has taken hold and spread to every continent of the world .Not unlike the French revolution in the 18th century, where similarly there was economic inequality as the “top” tier of society paid no taxes at all. It ended with the 99% creating their own constitution.

Taken from http://occupywallstreet.net/learn

What are your goals and demands?

We do not have one or two simple demands, though many demand them of us. Why? Because we believe that making demands of a corrupt system makes our success contingent on the will of others. It legitimizes the corrupted, it disempowers us.

Our actions are our demands.

What is your demand? What are you doing about it?

 

Who are your leaders?
A
Occupy Wall Street is structured on anarchist organizing principles. This means there are no formal leaders and no formal hierarchy. Rather, the movement is full of people who lead by example. We are leader-full, and this makes us strong.

 

French revolution http://www.history.com/topics/french-revolution

Nice occupy movement documentory https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-p3zt8hP-g

Occupy movement http://www.occupy.com/

Marriage in Thailand

 Thai-wedding.jpg

Hello, hope everyone is well.As I am currently living and working in Thailand, I thought that I would write a little bit about marriage here and how it has changed. I will give you an example through a friend or two of mine.

The institution of marriage has changed a lot in Thailand, mostly to the relaxation of traditions regarding the Buddhist components of the weddings.To begin with, the husband must approach the family of the person that he wishes to marry. They then decide on a price for the dowry or the สินสอด (sin sodt). This changes entirely depending on the looks, education and personal background of their child. Personally, I have known friends pay around 150,00 baht to the family for permission to ask to be engaged to marry, then over a million baht as part of a dowry to actually marry them.

The actual ceremony has changed a lot as well. Before it was seen as a bad omen to see a monk at a wedding as they were related to death and funerals. They would, however, consult a monk before the wedding for astrological advice on a matter such as when to set the wedding ceremony, etc.The actual ceremony itself was not at the temple at all as that was strictly forbidden. Now couples often go to the temple on the wedding day and sometimes are even married on temple grounds.Quite often monks are invited to make a blessing and share a meal at a marriage ceremony.

This is how the Buddhist component of a modern wedding ceremony typically  takes place:

“During the Buddhist component of the wedding service, the couple first bow before the image of the Buddha. They then recite certain basic Buddhist prayers or chants (typically including taking the Three Refuges and the Five Precepts), and light incense and candles before the image. The parents of the couple may then be called upon to “connect” them, by placing upon the heads of the bride and groom twin loops of string or thread that link the couple together. The couple may then make offerings of food, flowers, and medicine to the monks present. Cash gifts (usually placed in an envelope) may also be given to the temple at this time.

The monks may then unwind a small length of thread that is held between the hands of the assembled monks. They begin a series of recitations of Pali scriptures intended to bring merit and blessings to the new couple. The string terminates with the lead monk, who may connect it to a container of water that will be “sanctified” for the ceremony. Merit is said to travel through the string and be conveyed to the water. A similar arrangement is used to transfer merit to the dead at a funeral, further evidence of the weakening of the taboo on mixing funerary imagery and trappings with marriage ceremonies. Blessed water may be mixed with wax drippings from a candle lit before the Buddha image and other unguents and herbs to create a paste that is then applied to the foreheads of the bride and groom to create a small dot, similar to the marking made with red ochre on Hindu devotees. The bride’s mark is formed with the butt end of the candle rather than the monk’s thumb, in keeping with the Vinaya prohibition against touching women.

The highest-ranking monk present may elect to say a few words to the couple, offering advice or encouragement. The couple may then make offerings of food to the monks, at which point the Buddhist portion of the ceremony is concluded.”

Gay marriage is not currently licensed or recognised.