Month: March 2008

  • Iranian Mall Rats Riot Against Modesty Police

    A woman fought back, and the crowd joined in, chanting ‘We do not want the Islamic regime!’

  • Palme Prize to Go Ahead as Planned

    Organisers say the ceremony will go ahead in honour of Parvin Ardalan, who won for her women’s rights work in Iran.

  • Ardalan Prevented from Leaving to Collect Prize

    Parvin Ardalan was on the plane for Sweden to collect Olaf Palme prize when the police stopped her.

  • Parvin Ardalan Defies Jail Fighting for Equality

    Ardalan has denounced the country’s Islamic revolution for destroying a generation of Iranians.

  • Providing a context

    The archbishops tell us, in the concluding sentence of their letter to the communities secretary:

    The relationship between Church and State, reaffirmed by the Government last July in The Governance of Britain, will continue to provide a context in which people of all faiths and none can live together in mutual respect in this part of the Realm.

    What does that mean? Anything? Is it anything other than an obvious absurdity? What can it mean to say that a relationship between church and state will provide a context in which people of all faiths and none can live together in mutual respect? Why would it do that? What does a relationship between the state and one particular church have to do with providing a context for a whole lot of people who have no interest in that church to live together in mutual respect? What does it have to do with providing a context for a whole lot of people who dislike or hate or fear or are bored by that church to live together in you know what?

    What can the archbishops mean? Let’s get real, dudes. The truth is, the ‘relationship’ between an official established Christian church and the state necessarily excludes all non-Anglicans – all atheists, Jews, Muslims, Catholics, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, non-Anglican Protestants. The relationship is one between the state and one specific group, not one between the state and everyone, so what kind of ‘context’ are they talking about? Are they just pointlessly announcing that if all goes well people can live together despite the existence of this ridiculous and anachronistic relationship? Or are they, more expansively, saying this relationship actually makes living together possible, or helps it along in some way? If it’s the first, it’s just blather; if it’s the second, it’s ludicrous.

  • Finnish Organization Helps Victims of Violence

    An immigrant woman often faces domestic violence when the perpetrator feels that his power is diminished.

  • German Organization Rescues Women

    Friend of Hatun Surucu formed an organization to help women escape ‘honour’ killing.

  • Plea Bargain in Abu Ghanem Trial

    Victim’s female relatives described a reign of terror enforced by men to preserve ‘family honor.’

  • Afghans Protest Geert Wilders Film on Koran

    No real problems in Afghanistan, so might as well protest some Dutch guy dissing the Koran.

  • The Sensus Divinitatis Firms Up Your Beliefs

    It’s better than free weights.

  • Mo Sings the Respect Song

    R.E.S.P.E.C.T., I’ll burn down your embassy.

  • Iraqi Journalists Mourn Murdered Union Leader

    Iraqi Journalists’ Union has picked a new leader, who declared a week of mourning for Shihab al-Timimi.

  • Nick Cohen on the Squeal of Fundamentalism

    The UN HRC is proposing in all seriousness to protect religion by doctoring its universal defence of freedom of expression.

  • The Difficulty of Reforming the Hadith

    It is not rationalising but the radical tendency that has the momentum.

  • Archbishops Fret About Blasphemy Repeal

    ‘It should not be capable of interpretation as a secularising move, or as a general licence to attack or insult religious beliefs and believers.’

  • Two Former Islamists Start Think Tank

    Aim is to ‘revive a western Islam’ by removing scriptural literalism, extremism, Islamism.

  • Berlin Exhibition Closes after Muslim Threats

    Galerie Nord closed after a group of Muslims walked in and threatened staff with violence.

  • EU Criticizes Iran’s New Penal Code

    Death for apostasy already exists in Iran under Sharia; changes would bring the punishment into the criminal code.

  • EU Asks Iran to Reconsider

    Iran typically dismisses Western criticism of its legal system, claiming Islamic law is fundamentally different.

  • Archepiscopal weight thrown around

    So the archbishops have changed their minds about not resisting the repeal of the blasphemy laws? They’ve decided to resist after all? Why? Did they look around themselves and decide that religious types don’t interfere with the government enough and they’d better get busy and start meddling?

    Dr Rowan Williams and Dr John Sentamu say in a letter today that the Government should not lightly change laws that, though their day-to-day importance may be small, “nevertheless carry a significant symbolic charge.”

    Why yes, they do, and that’s exactly why they should be not only changed but ground into powder and then torched. The significant symbolic charge they carry is that it is Not Permissible to mock or tease or chaff or rally or quiz or fall down laughing at religion. That’s a bad thing to be symbolized, which is why the laws should be ground into powder and then torched.

    It should not be capable of interpretation as a secularising move, or as a general licence to attack or insult religious beliefs and believers.

    The Anglican church is supposed to be a relatively liberal body, isn’t it? Well – if that’s liberal, what would reactionary look like?