Category: Articles

Is it possible to imagine a society without the humanities? Such a society has probably never existed in all of human history. There is little doubt that the human animal is obsessed by its own past, by the meaning of its existence, by narratives and theories which help it make sense of experience. Whatever science and technology help us to achieve, they remain useful tools which offer little insight into the core of our emotional lives and the bulk of what motivates us on a day-to-day basis. They can answer the question of “how” but have little to say as to “why.”

As has been pointed out before, the scientific method has proven itself successful by limiting the questions it can answer to falsifiable hypotheses. This has allowed the extraordinary progress of our understanding of the natural world, but it has also meant the permanent divorce of the humanities and natural sciences into C. P. Snow’s “Two Cultures” and the Methodenstreit of the German professors. The “natural philosophers” of yesteryear are gone, and we are the better for the triumph of empirical inquiry—provided we don’t convince ourselves that it is the only form of knowledge.

Just because the scientific method is not applicable to all the questions besetting humanity does not mean we should limit the questions we ask. How great an impact would Einstein or Andrei Sakharov or Subramayan Chandrasekhar have had on the world if they had limited their insights to natural science and ignored political and moral questions? Can a mind even think the creative thoughts that advances in engineering or particle physics or evolutionary biology require without being exposed to anything beyond a narrowly technological education?

Despite all of this—that is, the seemingly self-evident relevance of the humanities as disciplines—there is talk by informed observers that a world without any sustained inquiry into literature, art, philosophy, and history may be on the horizon. This possibility, and the supposed horrors it would unleash, is of course nothing new. It has been kicked around by apocalyptic cranks and reactionary snobs for decades. Discussing it leaves a sour taste in the mouths of those who recall Allan Bloom defending his shrinking profession against the terror of Rock and Roll and affirmative action.

The defense of the humanities and the liberal arts can at times take on the tone of a rear-guard action. It is no coincidence that the most ardent defenders of the humanities are those who make careers in them and often have little skill or expertise to do anything else. They can oftensound rather like the genteel nineteenth-century French nobleman who refuses to sully himself with the work of tradesmen.

We also don’t need to agree with Eric Hobsbawm when he claims in The Age of Extremes that today’s young people are living in a “perpetual present,” knowing only the latest bands and fashions and completely oblivious to their place in the grand progress of time and history. Intellectuals tend to be attracted as a rule to apocalyptic fantasies which magnify personal insecurities into social conspiracies. Young people are the usual targets of such fantasies as the standard-bearers of the coming chaos. This is undoubtedly unfair to rising generations and deeply exaggerated.

Leaving any reactionary language aside, however, it is worth considering for a moment the real facts underlying talk of the decline of the humanities and the debilitating social consequences that could accompany it. The truth is that there are immense problems facing the professional humanities and it is no fantasy or joke: it bodes ill for the future of our children and ourselves.

By numbers alone, the humanities are in steep decline. In a much quoted article in Harvard Magazine published a decade ago, the authors summarize the situation as follows:

Between 1970 and 1994, the number of B.A.s conferred in the United States rose 39 percent. Among all bachelor’s degrees in higher education, three majors increased five- to tenfold: computer and information sciences, protective services, and transportation and material moving… English, foreign languages, philosophy, and religion all declined. History fell, too. . . On the Preliminary Scholastic Aptitude Test, only 9 percent of students now indicate interest in humanities.[1].

In the intervening years, the situation has only deteriorated. Today, only 50% or so of those who obtain PhDs in humanities fields go on to acquire tenure-track jobs within a year of graduation. And given the number of drop-outs in such programs, the total percentage of those who enter PhD programs who eventual become full-time professors is closer to 30% [2]. Anthony Grafton on the New York Review of Books blog reports talk of the closing and elimination of humanities departments at large state schools in Iowa, Nevada, and elsewhere due to planned budget cuts [3]. Once again, when the blade comes down, the humanities are the first to go.

Grafton, a prolific historian and beneficiary of unapologetic liberal arts training at the University of Chicago, has also written of a different but related challenge to the humanities: the renewed attacks by know-nothing Republicans against the historical profession and its academic freedom. One recent controversy involved William Cronon of the University of Wisconsin. Grafton outlines the details: “Stephan Thompson—an operative for the Republican Party of Wisconsin—used the state’s Open Documents law to demand copies of all emails to and from Cronon since January 1 that mention Wisconsin governor Scott Walker or any of a number of other words related to the state’s recent labor debates. Professor Cronon had written critically on his blog Scholar as Citizen of Wisconsin Republicans’ recent efforts to curb the rights of state workers, and Thompson clearly hoped to catch him using his university email to engage in pro-union or pro-Democratic politics, which would violate state law.” [4].

The historical profession has of course always been a target for the American Right since the age of McCarthy, which bears it a somewhat bizarre antipathy given the lack of any real power exercised by the tribe of historians in broader society. But of course, the campaign against Cronon came on the heels of other political debates in Wisconsin which attempted to tar teachers and fire-fighters as a corrupt “elite.” The logic is very similar. It is also unsurprising that modern day Republicans and Tea Partiers would dislike academic history when it disagrees with their founding myths of a God-fearing Jefferson (the man who took a razor to the Bible in order to eliminate all mention of the supernatural) and a Social Darwinist Benjamin Franklin.

What is more disturbing than the attacks of Republican bulldogs on a variety of inconvenient truths is the apparent capitulation of the would-be defenders of the humanities. In countless ways, professional experts in the humanities seem to have acquiesced to the decline of their own profession. This may partly be due to the fact that professors of history and literature tend to benefit from a shrinking job market and the concomitant proletarianization of the graduate student body. The proliferation of “adjunct professors” and various part-time teaching assistants has freed these professors to do “research” and quit teaching almost entirely, unless it is to mass audiences who treat them as superstars.

Of course, there are professors who act as crusaders for the humanities and fight the good fight on behalf of their frazzled and unemployable graduate students: see Martha Nussbaum’s Not for Profit: Why Democracy Needs the Humanities, a recent contribution to a growing genre of scholarly work defending English, philosophy, and history as fields of study. However, Nussbaum, Grafton and others often seem to be lone voices in the wilderness, and their own comfortably tenured status reduces the urgency of their appeals.

The real problem goes so deep as to appear nearly insoluble. The fact is that young people are not as interested as they once were in studying the humanities. Since education is and must be a market-driven enterprise, it would be foolish to insist that students study what they don’t care about and don’t regard as valuable. When young adults come to college and go into debt and spend four years cut off from the possibility of earning a living, they expect to be able to make a comfortable life for themselves at the other end.

It does not help that liberal arts professors and teachers often contribute to the widespread misconception that their fields do not lead to successful careers by endlessly repeating the cliché that the humanities teach one “how to live.” The annual “Aims of Education” addresses at the University of Chicago regularly showcase this attitude to beginning undergraduates and are often met with rolled eyes. When told they will learn “how to live” by studying Elizabethan sonnets, most young people counter that they need a career to live at all: the question of how it should be done therefore becomes secondary. The defenders of the humanities argue that the study of history and literature and philosophy offers a framework for approaching the world and a set of narratives, examples, and stories that can sustain one throughout the challenges of life. Ideally this is true. But again, students counter that such an intellectual framework will be useless if they never go on to face exciting challenges in stimulating careers.

Humanities professors and other defenders of the liberal arts need to accept that it is appropriate for young people to want to make a living for themselves and to go on to careers of some sort. These are not purely materialistic concerns, and providing for oneself and one’s future family are essential to spiritual and emotional health. Being told that the liberal arts teach you “how to live” undoubtedly sounds hollow when you are 22 and forced to envision moving back in with your parents after college.

The point that needs to be made, rather, is that the liberal arts make for an excellent preparation for a variety of careers, particularly when they are pursued critically rather than as a soft alternative to engineering and physics. It simply makes no sense that vocational college majors are increasingly sought-after in a rapidly changing economy. This is not to say that a background in engineering or nursing or anything else is not useful, but that it is not the only background which can prepare a student for a successful career. It is shocking that in a professional world increasingly driven by the ability to communicate, analyze, and think critically, in which specific technical skills are often rendered obsolete by mechanization—in such an environment, we still perpetuate the myth of the unemployable humanities grad. This despite a recent study by Richard Arum of New York University showing that liberal arts majors tend to show steady improvement over the four years of their education in essential cognitive skills, while those who study business administration, communications, or other vocational fields are often cripplingly failed by their schools in this respect [5].

Perhaps the greatest career asset offered by the liberal arts, meanwhile, is one that is widely undervalued but increasingly sought after in our society: an antidote to self-centeredness. They take one outside of oneself, force one to realize that one occupies a place in time and a broader human society, that our lives are determined as much by the human condition as by individual factors. It is little surprise that the steady decline of higher education in the humanities has coincided with a decline in measurable levels of empathy and compassion among college students. One study at the University of Michigan finds that young people in the college cohort are 40% less likely than their forebears of 20 or 30 years ago to express a concern for the less fortunate or to demonstrate a capacity to imaginatively sympathize with friends and acquaintances [6]. The stereotype of the “bleeding heart” college student is becoming ever more outdated as motives of competitiveness and acquisitiveness define career ambitions. Ironically (or perhaps not) it is precisely this aggressive and self-interested outlook which often proves a hindrance to true success in any form of cooperative enterprise in the “real world.” To counteract this tendency, the world needs the liberal arts now more than ever!

All of this means one of two things: either that the pendulum is set to swing back as more people recognize the value of a liberal arts education, or else that things need to get much worse before they can get better. There is some evidence that things may improve. Education in English and History continues at the high school level, and while it too faces challenges, it seems set to remain a part of the basic curriculum. Less tangibly, there is still the widespread belief among teachers and professors at all levels that a facility with words and ideas is a valuable asset: that it will allow one to do “great things.” This attitude is typically passed on to students: we all still feel on some level that truly “great things” involve making a contribution to society beyond the ability to make money or manipulate people or rise in a hierarchy. We should sell the liberal arts as a path to a earning a living, but a living of a certain kind—one which can sustain a person through the vicissitudes of history and social change and personal upheaval which she is certain to pass through as time goes on.

Of course, none of this is going to get across to students until the liberal arts change themselves and recover their former relevance. It is all well and good to blame the evils of commercialism and “market society,” but beyond a certain point, experts in the humanities have none to blame but themselves for failing to defend and articulate the inestimable value of their disciplines: or to eliminate the disconnect between the ideal of the liberal arts and what actually happens in your average humanities seminar. All the “market” means is that society will offer what people want and are willing to pay for: an essentially unobjectionable concept. Of course, unfettered capitalism can be a type of authoritarianism in its own right, and the examples are legion of young people who wish to make a career in the humanities but are unable to do so for financial reasons (a PhD in English is easier to pursue if you’re living on a trust fund!). But the answer to this is greater funding and government support to the humanities, not a rejection of the model of free choice in higher education.

Instead of blaming young people, anti-intellectual political currents, the market, and consumerism, the professors of the humanities ought to turn inward and ask questions of their own relevance. Why is it that the growing importance and usefulness of the liberal arts have gone unsung and the message of their worth fallen on deaf ears, or perhaps no ears at all? The growth of commercial society and the attacks of the rabid right on rational and humane study are not new to the twenty-first century. The humanities have weathered them before. Why should they cause such turmoil now?

What has changed in the last decades is the content of the humanities themselves, the turn away from a rational and critical study of literature, history, and philosophy to increasingly jargon-laden prose and rigid postmodern dogmas. People will only ever care about history, for example, if they perceive it as a path to truth and fact: a way of critically examining texts and documents which yields knowledge of the past and hones analytical skills. If history departments claim only to offer a “narrative” or “discourse” which is as good as any other, student will rightly ask why they should bother.

Literature and the study of it can likewise only justify itself if it contains truths about the human experience which can be absorbed and prove helpful to people in navigating their own lives. In a postmodern literary field dominated by pastiche and irony, it is easy for young people who need this sort of guidance to decide that English class is useless: are they so wrong?

Meanwhile, the proliferation of pop culture and media studies classes in humanities departments which are aimed at an extremely low level of intellectual engagement only adds to the problem: liberal arts professors hypocritically claim to be honing critical thinking and analytical skills while in far too many cases they offer only grade inflation to their increasingly unambitious students: who then go on to find that the ego-stroking did them no favors in a professional world which expects results and has no room for narcissicism.

So again, we are looking at two alternatives: a reappraisal and correction of where the humanities stand or a further decline before the inevitable rebound. Either way, the humanities will persist in one form or another. It is doubtful whether the human mind can sustain itself without some grappling with the larger questions of meaning, direction, and morality. But the extent to which humanities departments in the universities continue to fire this side of the human imagination is open to question.

It is quite possible that the situation will deteriorate for some time. Glenn Beck is already a prime source for many Americans’ notions of what happened in the past. He and his ilk, with their brand of rage and bigotry masquerading as moral conviction, may begin to look more convincing to young people whose only other exposure to the world of ideas has been an introductory English seminar full of incomprehensible quotations from Lacan and Derrida. The key to Beck’s appeal is that he offers emotional and moral guidance of a sort that ought to be gained through serious engagement with the humanities. Journalist Kate Zernike reports a conversation with one Tea Partier regarding some of Beck’s more specious factual claims (Beck makes a habit on his show of standing at a blackboard and offering lessons gleaned from the writings of Cold War-era conspiracy nuts). This Tea Partier ranted, “I don’t care if [its] untrue. It doesn’t make any difference…. You can have all the facts, but if you don’t’ trust the mind-set or the value system of the people involved, you can’t even look at the facts anymore.” [7]. Something is very wrong when the value system of Glenn Beck can seem so unassailable that reason stands no chance against it.

The potential to offer a better future for new generations, one in which people don’t have to turn on Fox News to feel the spur of moral passion, is up to those of us who have committed ourselves to the humanities: we have no one else to blame if we fail, and no other saviors to turn to if we refuse to shoulder the burden.

REFERENCES

[1] James Engell and Anthony Dangerfield, “The Market-Model University, Humanities in the Age of Money,” Harvard magazine, May-June 1998: 50.

[2] http://phdinhistory.blogspot.com/2009/01/my-aha-paper.html

[3] http://www.nybooks.com.proxy.uchicago.edu/blogs/nyrblog/2010/mar/09/britain-the-disgrace-of-the-universities/

[4] http://www.nybooks.com.proxy.uchicago.edu/blogs/nyrblog/2011/apr/04/academic-freedom-cronon-affair/

[5] http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/01/18/106949/study-many-college-students-not.html

[6] http://health.usnews.com/health-news/family-health/brain-and-behavior/articles/2010/05/28/todays-college-students-more-likely-to-lack-empathy

[7] Kate Zernike, Boiling Mad: Inside Tea Party America. New York, 2010, pp. 11.

Being an address delivered by Leo Igwe at a seminar on Secularism in Benin (Laicite au Benin) at Codiam, Cotonou, Republic of Benin on July 26 2011

Thank you friends and the good people of Benin. I bring you all greetings from IHEU, its member groups and individual supporters. I thank you for creating time to be here. I call you friends because I believe we are together in this struggle to realize a secular country and a secular continent and a secular world. A secular Africa is long over due. But as you know we cannot have a secular Africa without a secular Benin. So we need to make secularism happen in our life or at least commence the process of making it happen some day.

I believe we are together in this quest for the enthronement of secular and humanist values – reason, science, critical thinking, compassion and cooperation with one another, democracry and human rights.This seminar is convened to underscore these common goals and to explore ways of achieving them.

For all of you in Benin, this important campaign starts here. It starts by making your country a secular republic in principle and in practice. It starts by identifying those programs and policies that frustrate the evolution of a secular society. It starts by working and campaigning to realize those secular promises contained in our constitution and in the various human rights instruments, which this country has signed or ratified, but have continuosly eluded most people over the years. In many cases, the constitutions of African countries say that the states are secular but in practice, they are not. They priviilege one or two religions and discriminate againsttheir citizens on the grouds of religious belief and unbelief.We need to ensure that the money meant to fund public health, public schools and infrastructure is not used to finance religious myths and dogmas.

Nigeria is often described as a deeply religious society where most – if not all – persons profess religious beliefs without qualification. Nigeria is often portrayed as a country where the religious demography is static – everybody is religious, everybody belongs to one faith or the other. Everybody professes religion, nobody renounces religion. Nobody is critical or skeptical about religious dogmas. Non-religious and freethinking Nigerians are purportedly so insignificant. For me this is a misrepresentation of the religious demography and dynamics in the country, and the time has come for us to rectify this misrepresentation.

No doubt, most Nigerians profess belief in God and identify themselves with one of the three main faiths – Traditional Religion, Christianity and Islam. There are many Nigerians who profess minority faiths and spiritualities or some forms of religious syncretism embracing elements of more than one religion. The politics of the national census has not allowed us to know exactly the number of Nigerians who profess different faiths. Generally, in Nigeria there is a lot of social pressure on individuals to be religious and to remain religious from cradle to grave. Remove this social and political pressure on Nigerians and the religious dynamics will radically change.

A very important and largely ignored aspect of Nigeria’s religious demography is the non-believing folk. These are the ones who renounce their ‘family religion’ or those who see no evidence for the existence of God. They see no existential value or meaning in the religion which they were born into. They live their lives without professing a belief in God, without belonging to any faith. They are called humanists, atheists and freethinkers. They exist in Nigeria. They live in Nigeria.

But anyone who knows the intensive religious upbringing and bombardment every Nigerian child goes through will understand why most non-religious people are in the closet and seem not to be active or visible.

From childhood, Nigerians are brainwashed with assorted religious dogmas including the doctrine that those who say in their heart that there is no God are fools, and that questioning or denouncing the existence of God is a blasphemous and sacrilegious offence punishable in this world and in the so-called hereafter.

So Nigerians are made to believe that professing religion is a must and not a matter of choice. Hence so many Nigerians who were born into one religion or the other and who grow up to question, challenge or reject religious myths and superstition cannot express their thoughts and sentiments openly in public. Many Nigerians are non-believers in private and believers in public. They leave religion and live without religion but still remain in the closet. One bitter truth about religious demography in Nigeria is that many who identify themselves or get counted as religious believers are not. Many Nigerians who renounce their family religion still pay lip service and identify nominally with the faith of the fathers. Because Nigerians are taught and told that there is no alternative to religion, they remain ‘religious’ even when they have lost the faith.

Many people who leave religion and live without religion cannot come into the open to say so. This is not because they are cowards or they are not convinced non-believers. This is not because they are not proud to be religious non-believers. The reason is that they value life and want to remain alive. They do not want to be wasted by religious fanatics. Unlike our religious folks, non-believers do not want to be murdered or ‘marytred,’ because the so-called afterlife, which believers imagine they will inherit in the hereafter, is an illusion. In our families and communities, there is a heavy price on leaving religion and in living without religion. Those who renounce their faith in God are hated, persecuted and discriminated against. They are treated as enemies of the society. They are ostracized and despised. In some communities those who openly denounced their faith can be murdered in cool blood otherwise the person loses the support, sympathy and solidarity of the family and community including the government. So because of the risks involved many Nigerians who leave religion or live without religion do not want to openly admit it. Religious non-believers remain in the closet because they do want to die.

Until believers abandon force, intimidation, violence and persecution of those who leave religion or live without religion, religious statistics will remain false and exaggerated. It will be difficult to ascertain the exact number of believers and non-believers in this country. Unbelievers will continue to be counted and included as religious believers.

Still there are few other Nigerians who have taken the bull by the horns. They have, in spite of the risks involved, openly denounced or rejected the faith of their parents and confirmed their identity as godless and non-religious. They have gone public with their unbelief. The names that easily come to mind are Tai Solarin and Wole Soyinka. But they are not the only Nigerians who have said farewell to god and religion. There are many freethinking non-religious individuals out there in our schools, colleges and universities, in the rural and urban areas. Many Nigerians who have left religion and are living rational faithless life are doctors and nurses, teachers and students, carpenters, tailors, drivers and mechanics, wives and mothers, brothers and sisters, husbands and fathers. And they are growing in number. They may not be as organized as our religious folks but the fact is that they are here, and are going about their lives in a rational, ethical and lawful manner.

The time has come for use to acknowledge the non-religious dynamic in our society. The time has come for us to recognize that there are Nigerians who have left religion and are living a happy and meaningful life like other human beings.

CONTACT: Mike Meno, SCA communications manager: 202-299-1091, 443-927-6400 or mike@secular.org

WASHINGTON, D.C. – At a live-televised town hall meeting in College Park, Maryland, today, President Barack Obama gave the first question opportunity to Amanda Knief of the Secular Coalition for America, who asked the president why he has still not fulfilled the campaign promise he made three years ago to end the Bush-era policies that allow federally funded religious organizations to discriminate in hiring and employment on the basis of belief.

Knief, an atheist and the government relations manager for the Secular Coalition for America, pressed the president on a campaign promise he made in Zanesville, Ohio, on July 1, 2008, when he pledged to ensure that federal grant recipients cannot “proselytize to the people you help, and you can’t discriminate against them – or against the people you hire – on the basis of religion.”

“You have not rescinded the executive order that permits this type of discrimination,” Knief told the president. “In a time of economic hardship, when it is difficult for a person to get a job based on her skills, what would you say to a woman who was denied employment based on her religion, or lack of religious beliefs, by a taxpayer [funded] organization?”

In his response, Obama described the topic as “a very difficult issue” but didn’t address the central question of why taxpayers should continue funding religious discrimination.

“This is always a tricky part of the First Amendment,” Obama said. “On the one hand, the First Amendment ensures that there is freedom of religion, on the other hand, we want to make sure that religious bodies are abiding by general laws. […] And so then the question is, does a Jewish organization have to hire a non-Jewish person as part of that organization? Now, I think that the balance we tried to strike is to say that if you are offering, if you’ve set up a nonprofit that is disassociated from your core religious functions and is out there in the public doing all kinds of work, then you have to abide, generally, with the nondiscrimination hiring practices. If, on the other hand, it is closer to your core functions as a synagogue or a mosque or a church then there may be more leeway for you to hire somebody who is a believer of that particular religious faith.

“It doesn’t satisfy everybody,” the president continued. “I will tell you that a lot of faith-based organizations think we are too restrictive in how we define those issues. There are others, like you obviously, that think we are not restrictive enough. I think we’ve struck the right balance so far, but this is something we continue to be in dialogue with faith based organizations about to try to make sure that their hiring practices are as open and as inclusive as possible.”

Knief later said she was not satisfied with the president’s answer.

“Unfortunately, the president didn’t address the most egregious aspect of this policy – that religious discrimination is occurring on the taxpayer’s dime,” Knief said. “Discrimination is wrong in all forms, especially when it is being funded by taxpayers. I would urge the president to reconsider the statements he made today, and stick to his campaign promise of 2008 by signing an executive order barring any taxpayer funding of religious organizations that discriminate on the basis of belief.”

Video of the exchange is available here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9xgqidBoQU

Last month, the Secular Coalition was one of dozens of secular and religious organizations affiliated with the Coalition Against Religious Discrimination (CARD) that joined U.S. Rep Robert “Bobby” Scott and other House members at a press conference on Capitol Hill to urge Obama to end religious discrimination in hiring and employment.

The Justice Department has said it is reviewing the current policy on a “case by case” basis, but Obama has not spoken publicly about the issue since he’s been in office.

The Secular Coalition for America is a 501(c)4 organization that serves as the national lobby for secular Americans, including atheists, agnostics, and humanists, in our nation’s capital. Composed of 10 diverse member organizations, SCA works to protect and strengthen the secular character of our government as the best guarantee of freedom for all. For more information, please visit www.secular.org.

Spitting is believed by some people to be a way parents, elders and diviners pray and bless children, relations and followers. So, to some people, spitting is a sacred practice and spittle is revered as a purveyor and conveyor of divine benediction. In some cultures, anyone being prayed for by an elder or a diviner looks forward to being spit upon as a mark of benediction. I don’t know how human beings came about this dirty, unhygenic and medically unhealthy prayer habit, but I guess it must have been one of those faith based exploitative devices invented by diviners centuries ago. I am really shocked to know that this primitive and useless ritual persists among Africans even in this 21st century.

In his essay “Anger as a Metaphor of Witchcraft”, published in a book, Imagining Evil: Witchcraft Beliefs and Accusations in Contemporary Africa (2007), Umar Habila Dadem Danfulani stated that among Mupun people in Plateau state, “parental blessing, which is absolutely vital for personal wellbeing, as the rite of bwet/ zet n-ka laa-‘spitting on the child’ or ‘anointing the child with spittle’.” According to him, an elder may tell his son, “come let us get reconciled, so that I may spit on you before I die”. (Spit on me before he dies? Why doesn’t he die with his spittle?)

Umar noted that if a woman is childless, she may go to a diviner or an elder who may utter the following as he throws out spittle. “I have nothing against you. If I was the cause of your childlessness, go now and let us hear the cry of a child in your house by this time next year. You will be a mother of children.” It is believed that this medically hazardous and evidently nonsensical prayer ritual by a diviner can make a barren woman give birth to children.

This harmful practice also obtains in Senegal and Gambia. Marabus spit on their followers who come to them for prayers and blessing. They pour saliva on them in exchange for gifts. In these countries, followers of marabus visit them occasionally for special prayers and blessing. They bring marabus all sorts of gift items. After praying for them, these self-proclaimed earthly lieutenants of Allah spit into their outstretched palms as an act of blessing. And these poor follows rub their faces and bodies with the spittle as a mark of claiming or accepting the supposed blessing or favour from God.

Because this ritual takes place mainly during private consultations, it is difficult to know how prevalent it is. It is difficult to ascertain the number of people that wash their faces daily with the spittle of marabus and pastors in their despearte quest for divine favour, but the fact that it takes place at all is disgusting.

And I am calling upon all our so called priests, pastors, marabus or imams, prophets and prophetesses who indulge in this despicating ritual to stop it now. They should stop endangering the health of the society. Ordinarily it is unhealthy – in fact it is an insult – to spit on somebody. And so spitting on people should not be tolerated in the name of prayer or blessing. I call upon all enlightened and civilized minds to join hands and eradicate this unhealthy and primitive practice.

Those who go for prayers should not allow the pastors, marabus or the so called elders to spit on them, because they could, by so doing, contract infectious diseases like tuberculosis. They should resist them, stop them or draw their attention to the health implications of spitting on people.

Again there is no evidence at all that spitting on someone can confer blessing on him or her. There is no evidence that praying for somebody by pouring saliva, holy water or olive oil can alter the person’s fortune. It is all superstition. Unfortunately most Africans believe strongly in this mythical and irrational idea and as a result indulge themselves in risky and hazardous behavior.

Instead, there is overwhleming evidence that spittle contains disease-carrying micro-organisms that can endanger your health and that of the society. There is evidence that people can spread diseases by spitting or throwing saliva at others. Parents, elders, marabus, diviners and witch doctors should stop spitting on people in the name of praying for them. They should conduct their prayers in ways that do not endanger the health of people and of the society at large.

Dear friends

I wanted to thank you for your support of the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain. As you know we were in desperate need of financial help and are grateful for the donations of many generous individuals and groups.

What we do – breaking the taboo that comes with renouncing Islam and challenging a movement that sentences apostates to death – is considered ‘controversial’ to say the least and makes it almost impossible to get support from mainstream funders. Also, we haven’t been able to secure charity status.

In its refusal letter the Charity Commission says: “Under English law the advancement of religion is a recognised charitable purpose and charities are afforded certain fiscal privileges by the state. The prohibition of any such financial privilege as called for in the demand made in Manifesto would require a change in law. Similarly a separation of religion from the state and legal and education system would appear to require both constitutional reform and change to the law.”

There is something fundamentally wrong when the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain can’t get charity status but the Sharia Council legislating misogyny in its sharia courts can. And how absurd that defending secularism is not a charitable object but advancing religion is, particularly in this day and age when we are living under an Islamic Inquisition.

Much of the struggle for change throughout history has included demands for changes in the law and in religion’s role in the public space. And this is something the Council of Ex-Muslims will continue to do with your support.

Again, thank you. Please do continue to support us in any way you can; every little bit helps go a long way in the fight that lies ahead.

Warmest wishes

Maryam

Maryam Namazie

Spokesperson, Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain

1. See Maryam’s speech at the Dublin World Atheist Conference on the Islamic Inquisition.

2. See our Manifesto.

3. See an updated list of members.

4. See the latest media coverage of our activities.

5. To donate to the crucial work of CEMB, please either send a cheque made payable to CEMB to BM Box 1919, London WC1N 3XX, UK or pay via Worldpay by visiting here. We also need regular support that we can rely on and are asking for supporters to commit to giving at least £3 a month via direct debit. You can find out more about how here.

6. The Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain was launched in June 2007. The launch video has been seen by over 190,000 people.

LATEST STATEMENTS AND ACTIONS, Updated 10 July 2011

AUSTRALIA

Statement from Russell Blackford, author and philosopher, Australia: It is unacceptable that the barbaric punishment of death by stoning continue in the twenty-first century. I join with many others throughout the world in calling for an end to the practice of death by stoning, condemnation of any government that uses or condones the practice, including the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the immediate release of Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani and others currently sentenced to death by stoning.

BELGIUM

Ann Brusseel of the Flemish parliament: will issue a resolution for 21 July (Belgian National Day) urging the Federal government to take action on violations of human rights and crimes against humanity of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Statement from Sonja Eggerickx, President, International Humanist and Ethical Union: I write on behalf of the International Humanist and Ethical Union to express our support for the International Day Against Stoning on July 11, 2011. The International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) is the global federation of Humanist and atheist organizations, representing more than 100 groups from 40 countries. As the voice for Humanists around the globe, we call on all Humanists and all people of conscience to support the International Day Against Stoning. We also call on all people of conscience to raise their voice to save Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani who remains imprisoned in Iran facing the possibility of death by stoning. We recommend the International Day Against Stoning Website at http://stopstonningnow.com/wpress/4334 for advice and support in campaigning against stoning in general and for working to save Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani in particular.

Statement from Women Council of Belgium: Democracy contains the same values everywhere and we must defend it in the same way all over the world. What reasonable person, whether European or from elsewhere, can still be in favor of stoning? Or female genital mutilation? Or hanging homosexuals? Or confining women at home? Women are more than half of humanity! Stoning is among the most the barbaric violence of the 21st century and massacres against women are perpetrated over and over again! In Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sudan, Afghanistan, Indonesia, Pakistan, Yemen, to name the main countries, death by stoning is still a punishment to which women – mostly – are still subject to… And ironically among these countries some have signed conventions of Human Rights. Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani has languished for too many years in an Iranian jail. She has already been punished with 99 lashes administered in the presence of one of her two children. How can we speak of “justice”? Stoning in Iran is a political tool in the hands of a, religious, Islamic, archaic and repressive regime decided to oppress the society in one of the hardest ways that exist. In countries experiencing armed conflicts and in countries that have introduced Sharia law, violence against women is organized. Women who cannot defend themselves are the victims of fanatics and Islamic courts. Today the voice of Sakineh reached the world and today Sakineh represents all victims of obscurantism. In Belgium we demand the abolition of stoning, which is a brutal murder that nothing can justify. On the International Day against Stoning in Belgium we say stop stoning now! Viviane Teitelbaum, President CFFB – women council of Belgium

BOTSWANA

Ferdinand Berkhof (Seheho) sent in a cartoon “worlds apart”:

CANADA

Vancouver
Act of Solidarity on corner of Howe and Robson
12.30-15.00 hours
Contact: Zari Asli,zariasli@yahoo.ca

Ottawa
12.00-14.00
Location: in front of Parliament

Toronto

Statement from Farzana Hassan, Author: Islamic law, as interpreted and applied in Muslim countries renders women especially vulnerable with respect to sexuality issues. For women, adultery, or a mere suspicion of adultery, can often land Muslim women in trouble with the law, particularly what passes for law in Iran, Saudi Arabia and other parts of the Muslim world. The question then is: Why does an act that cannot take place without two parties often result in such dire consequences for women alone? The obvious answer is the relative ease with which guilt can be established for women rather than men. For example, pregnancy is often interpreted as proof of adultery, and rape is often construed as adultery. The fallacy occurs because Islamic law in many parts of the Muslim world makes no fundamental distinction between rape and adultery. Victims of rape often end up being incarcerated for adultery because they are unable to prove their innocence due to unfair religious rulings on women’s testimony. But even if the law established culpability equally to both sexes, one must answer a very basic question about the prescribed Islamic punishment for adultery. A man may marry up to four wives, over and above the concubines with whom he may have sexual relations. Doesn’t that reduce a man’s chances of committing adultery, which would technically be defined as sex outside of marriage? A woman, on the other hand, has no such options. She may express her sexuality only within the bounds of her marriage to one husband. Therefore, even a single encounter with a man not her lawful husband immediately brands her an adulteress. The man may escape the charge of adultery by having several partners and regarding them all as legal. Such inequality of opportunity, which imposes the charge of adultery on a woman much more easily, makes equal punishment utterly unfair. Jurists and other modern exegetes of the Koran have regrettably failed to recognize the injustice. Moreover, the terminology has simply been manipulated to legalize men’s multiple unions and criminalize the same in women.Islamic law, as interpreted and applied in Muslim countries does not take into account the inequality of opportunity between men and women to express their sexuality. What is deemed perfectly legitimate for men is criminalized for women, leaving them vulnerable to sexual offences more often and far more easily. Muslim countries must therefore repeal such laws that discriminate between men and women in this manner. Laws must be based on secular and humanistic principles clearly embodying equality of the sexes.

DENMARK

Statement from Helle Merete Brix, Writer: I will participate in an action against stoning, this barbaric punishment that should long ago have been abolished. Thanks to the organisations letting the world know about the women and men in prisons in Iran and elsewhere being condemned to this inhuman punishment.

FRANCE

Paris

Several French organisations sent a press release to the media, a letter to the General Secretary of the UN, letters to ambassadors of the countries where stoning is practised and a special letter to the Iranian authorities. On 11 July, they will go to the Iranian embassy and give them the letter and hold a rally. The NGOs supporting the action are the following: Ligue du Droit International des Femmes, Association créée par Simone de Beauvoir,Mouvement Pour la Paix et Contre le Terrorisme, Regards de Femmes, Coordination Française du Lobby Européen de Femmes and Femmes contre les intégrismes

Postcard from Little Shiva:

Statement from the European Feminist Initiative: IFE-EFI strongly supports the International Campaign against Stoning and will be part of the International Day of protest on the 11th of July. Stoning, flogging, beheading are used on behalf of honour, religion, culture or traditions against women for trying to realize their most basic human rights. All freedom-loving people and the feminist movement across the world are saying NO and struggle to put an end to these inhuman practices. Stoning is still legal in a number of countries. IFE-EFI demands the immediate prohibition of this practice and its recognition as a crime against Humanity. We call upon the United Nations to exercise pressure on the States where stoning is legal in order to get from them the condemnation of this crime. Building States, in which religion is separated from the public sphere; from the political, educational and judicial system is a necessary precondition for preserving women from tyranny and oppression and achieving equality between women and men.

GERMANY

Frankfurt
Solidarity action
Hauptwache, 16:00 hours

Köln
Solidarity Action
Domplatte, 17:00

Statement frm Hartmut Krauss, HINTERGRUND-Verlag: Das im Iran herrschende staatsislamistische System verkörpert die gegenwärtig wohl perverseste Verknüpfung von mittelalterlich-religiöser Barbarei mit technologischer (atomarer) Modernität. Deshalb ist es eine Schande, dass dieses Regime nicht mit dem gleichen ökonomischen, politischen und kulturellen Boykott sanktioniert wird wie früher das südafrikanische Apartheidregime.
Die barbarische Strafpraxis der Steinigung gehört ebenso wie das gesamte islamische „Recht“ und seine Befürworter und Anwender auf den Müllhaufen der Geschichte. Das Schicksal Bin Ladens und die Destabilisierung einer Reihe von arabischen Despotien sind hoffentlich Vorboten einer letztendlich auch im Iran unvermeidbaren säkularen Revolution, in deren Verlauf die religionsfanatischen Steiniger und Missetäter zur Rechenschaft gezogen werden.

INDIA

Statement from M Hasan Jowher, President, Society for Promoting Rationality: Society for Promoting Rationality is dead against all barbaric treatments such as stoning. This is a painful baggage of a part of human history and is best consigned to archives. We offer our total support to all movements for the banishment of all such forms of punishments smacking of cruelty and barbarity…

IRELAND

Statement from Conor Scott: I wish to assert my absolute abhorrence of the practice of stoning. It is a way of torturing people to death. Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani is NOT guilty of any recognisable crime but yet she risks being stoned to death for adultery (not a crime). She should be immediately released! The death penalty should be abolished in Iran.

INDONESIA

Bogor, West Java

Teacher and activist Rafiq Mahmood sent a letter to the Jakarta Post and Jakarta Globe on stoning: This Monday, as in previous years, there are expected to be worldwide protests against the sentence of stoning decreed against Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani in Iran. She has been accused of murdering her husband without a shred of evidence, and the case has never been proved in court. She has been sentenced to be stoned for adultery purely on the “special knowledge” of a judge. Her execution has been held off only because of the weight of international pressure. She has had confessions extracted from her on television. She awaits a decision on her sentence. In the meantime she remains in prison. Her courageous lawyer, for no crime other than daring to defend her, also is in prison under a four year sentence. Although the focus of the International Day Against Stoning is on Iran and one particular woman victim of atrocious injustice, the events are intended to draw attention to the continuing presence in the world of this most barbaric and cruel form of state sponsored public murder. All forms of capital punishment are unjust, barbaric and cruel. They have no part in modern society. Stoning, however, is particularly cruel and discriminatory. It is a public display of the worst depths of human nature. It is designed and intended to punish an act of love. That an act of passionate love should be rewarded by an act of collective passionate hate does nothing for the benefit of society. It demeans and degrades us all. It is discriminatory. The evidence required against a man is far less than that against a woman. Women complaining of rape have to produce four male witnesses or eight female witnesses to the actual penetration. Even if she can prove DNA evidence, it is not enough for the sharia courts. Her accusation, however, is a confession, an admission that sexual congress occurred outside marriage. Enough to convict her. Even the sentence itself is discriminatory. If a man can manage to scramble out of the hole in which he is buried and run away, he is free. Men are buried up to their waist to cover the male auwrat. Women, to “protect” their modesty, are buried up to their necks. It is cruel. It takes a long time to die. There is a Goldilocks rule for the size of stones. They must not be too big – the victim must not lose consciousness too quickly from a heavy impact. Heavy stones might also fall too short of the target. They must not be too small – a small stone thrown with enough force could also be prematurely lethal. The province of Aceh unconstitutionally tried to introduce stoning. As more and more local governments ignore central authority and introduce their own brand of sharia sooner or later the issue of stoning elsewhere in Indonesia is bound to arise. Stoning is carried out in Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Somalia. Sudan has vowed that with the independence of South Sudan the north will impose a stricter sharia regime. It is time that we said an unequivocal no to any attempt to introduce stoning into any part of the Republic of Indonesia and used our influence with other Islamic countries to eliminate this practice once and for all.

ITALY

Turin

Statement by blogger Gianni Verdoliva: Stones are for decorating gardens, not for killing women. Stoning is a barbaric practise that needs to be put in the garbage of history. In 2011 we can’t afford to stay silent while women die or risk dying in this horrific way. Stoning MUST be outlawed and the law MUST be enforced everywhere in the word. Together we can do it. By providing aid and support for potential victims, for local activists and their families. In this battle we can’t afford to pick and choose other supporters simply because we disagree with them on other issues. Anyone is welcomed. And also I point out that, when stoning is legally sanctioned and/or tolerated the state should be the object of diplomatic and commercial boycott and has to be shamed as a pariah state unless it changes. My support for your battle against stoning is heartfelt. As a feminist, as a humanist and as an independent free-thinker. I admire local on the ground activists and I wish them all the best. In feminist solidarity.

NETHERLANDS

Groningen
Act of Solidarity, 19:30 hours
Contact: Daniëlle Vermanen, via Facebook page

NIGERIA

Statement from Leo Igwe, executive director of the Nigerian Humanist Movement: In today’s world, it is shocking to know that there are states like Iran where human beings are facing stoning sentences. And as often the case, this barbaric form of punishment is used against the vulnerable members of the population like Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani and her associates in Iran. I want to join my voice with those of other friends around world to upon the government of Iran to abolish stoning and execution of human beings. And to free Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani Now. In solidarity with International Day Against Stoning. P.S. We are holding a humanist convention in Abuja in September 22-25. And there is a session on faith based human rights abuses. Please send a presentation on the international campaign against stoning.

SWEDEN

Malmö
Solidarity Action
Gustav Adolfs Torg, 17:00

UK

London

Flash mob action at 18.30 hours
Trafalgar Square
Contact: Patty Debonitas, iransolidaritynow@gmail.com

Statement from Richard Dawkins, Scientist and Author: July 11th is the International Day against Stoning. It is organised by, among others, Maryam Namazie, that admirably courageous fighter on behalf of threatened women in Iran and wherever Islam oppresses them. Please support her on July 11th, wherever you are.

Act of solidarity by Nazanin Mohajer:

Statement from Ahlam Akram, Researcher and Writer: Stoning to death is the world’s oldest form of brutal execution; it is a cruel insane punishment that was derived from Hammurabi’s laws in Iraq thousands of years before the three Abrahamic religions. Later, It was adopted by Judaism… up until Jesus famous anti stoning statement “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone’’. But it was re-enforced during the first years of Islam and practiced today in some fundamentalist Muslim States. Although there is no trace for this crime in any verses in the Quran… yet there are several talks about Omer Ben Al Qattab confirming that it was mentioned in some verses of the Quran, and that the prophet practiced it and all his companions followed his action… meaning that the entire community participates in this horrible act which dissolve the barrier of humanity in the community and the individual. And allows for a culture of violence in the society. The procedure is extremely barbaric and bloody, and plants the seeds for a culture of continuous humiliation and demonization of women. I urge all women to stand against it and urge the UN to ban any member state that allows it from gaining its membership. As well as depriving it from international community aid. For a universal culture of peace we need to confirm universality of human rights in particular women’s rights.

Statement from Peter Tatchell, human rights campaigner: Stoning is a relic of uncivilisation. A barbaric crime against humanity, it is uniquely cruel and sadistic. The people of the world – and the United Nations – must do much more to end to stoning – and all other forms of capital punishment.

Statement from Stephen Law, editor of the Royal Institute of Philosophy journal THINK: It is important we stand in solidarity with people who are being intimated and killed by stoning, often on trumped up or absurd religious charges.

Statement from George Broadhead, Vice-President UK Gay And Lesbian Humanist Association, Secretary UK Pink Triangle Trust: I was appalled to learn that stoning is a punishment that is included in the laws in six Islamic countries – Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Pakistan, Yemen, the United Arab Emirates – and some states in Nigeria. This barbaric punishment amounts to torture before death and should have no place in the laws of any civilised society.

Statement from Ghaffar Hussain, Quilliam Foundation: We all should move to reject ancient and outmoded punishments, such as ‘flogging’ and ‘stoning’ as not being consistent with human rights and the modern world. We must recognise that the spirit of religious rulings can be realised away from the influences of the medieval mindset. Furthermore, these punishments were abandoned by the Ottoman Empire during the last 300 hundred years in its imperial life.

Statement from Nick Nakorn: There are some things in the world that are almost too horrible to think about and this issue is one of them – it seems almost impossible that anyone could think that torturing someone to death could ever be a good idea.

Statement from Amnesty International: We did issue this statement today which you are free to quote from, as it is a public document.

Canning Town Students protest over Iran Stoning case: http://www.london24.com/news/education/canning_town_students_protest_over_iran_stoning_1_956479

USA

Statement from Cyrus Nowrasteh, filmmaker, The Stoning of Soraya M: Soraya Manutcheri was stoned to death in the village of Kupayeh, Iran in 1986. She was framed by her husband who wished to avoid support payments in his desire to divorce her. He used a legal system imposed by the Islamic Republic of Iran called “Sharia” — which justifies the torture and suppression of its citizens, especially women. Since Soraya’s case innumerable women have been silenced by a repressive regime. This must stop. I commend the StopStoningNow campaign for bringing attention to the continuing grave injustice of stoning.

Statement from Antony Thomas, Filmmaker, For Neda: I appeal to all those who care about human rights and justice to show their outrage at the treatment of Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, as well as the wider issue of stoning as a punishment for those who break the medieval laws of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Although I believe that all civilised people should reject the death penalty in any circumstance, this particular form of killing stands out above all others as the cause of a slow and agonising death. It is not only utterly degrading for the victim, it degrades everyone who participates in this barbaric ritual as well as the regime that permits it.

Statement from American Humanist Association Supports International Day Against Stoning, Washington, D.C.: Today, on the International Day Against Stoning, the American Humanist Association is raising awareness of the brutal practice of stoning and demanding the end of stoning as a form of punishment around the world. The American Humanist Association stands beside the International Committee Against Stoning and its effort to eradicate the cruel tradition of stoning, an inhumane method of punishment which affects predominantly women and girls in developing countries. Fundamentalist religious zealots around the world are responsible for enacting laws based on stringent and unforgiving moral codes, sometimes punishable by sentences such as stoning to death. Women are stoned for “offenses” such as giving birth out of wedlock, extramarital affairs, and even in response to false accusations of murder. Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, who has been imprisoned along with her lawyer for four years, was sentenced by the courts of the Islamic Republic of Iran for various charges of being an accessory to murder, public indecency (for appearing in court without the traditional Islamic veil) and adultery. International pressure has resulted in a stay of her execution, but she and her lawyer still remain in prison. This pattern of indicting women on false accusations, and on grounds of violating strict religious requirements, places a heavy burden on women to obey laws set in place by the influence of male clergy and lawmakers. The American Humanist Association condemns the act of stoning as brutal and inhumane. Humanists worldwide strive to protect the dignity of all and work to protect those accused of crimes based on fundamentalist restrictions on women. We are proud to support the International Committee Against Stoning and the Save Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani Campaign in their efforts to end this practice.
Roy Speckhardt, Executive Director, American Humanist Association

Statement from Atheist Alliance International: Stoning is a barbaric practice and should be outlawed immediately. It is disgraceful that such a crime is undertaken in the name of “justice”. Sadly, stoning is by no means the only disgusting practice supported by Sharia law. It is too late to save Maryam Ayoubi but we can try to save Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani and the many many others like her. Atheist Alliance International condemns stoning and is proud stand in solidarity with its victims and potential victims on 11 July. Tanya Smith, President, Atheist Alliance International

Statement from Fred Edwords, National Director at United Coalition of Reason: Stoning is the very symbol of what it means to be primitive, barbaric, and cruel.

Letter to Islamic Republic of Iran from Anne Slater, Radical Women, United States Section National Organizer: Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, falsely accused of murdering her husband, is still languishing in prison. This is despite the fact that another person was convicted of the crime and has completed his sentence. Ashtiani has already suffered the cruel and inhumane torture of 99 lashes – twice – for adultery, which is not recognized as a crime in most civilized countries. Authorities recently said that no final decision had been reached on her stoning sentence and that she must remain in prison. Her lawyer, Sajjad Houtan Kian, also remains in prison for having had the courage to defend her and other women condemned to stoning sentences. He has been given the outrageous sentence of four years imprisonment, been put under a lot of pressure and lost 20 kilos (44 pounds) as a result of his devotion to his profession and his principles. The campaign to Save Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani continues to speak out in defence of humanity, and against the barbaric punishment of stoning everywhere. It has mobilised immense pressure against and condemnation of the Islamic regime of Iran from millions across the globe. It will continue to do so until you adopt humane punishments and equal laws for men and women. As opponents of the death penalty in the United States, as well as internationally, on 11 July 2011, the International Day Against Stoning, we demand the immediate release of Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, her lawyer Sajjad Houtan Kian, and others facing stoning sentences. We also demand a complete end to the barbaric practice of death by stoning.

Statement from Fred Edwords, National Director at United Coalition of Reason: Stoning is the very symbol of what it means to be primitive, barbaric, and cruel.

Letter to Islamic Republic of Iran from Anne Slater, Radical Women, United States Section National Organizer: Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, falsely accused of murdering her husband, is still languishing in prison. This is despite the fact that another person was convicted of the crime and has completed his sentence. Ashtiani has already suffered the cruel and inhumane torture of 99 lashes – twice – for adultery, which is not recognized as a crime in most civilized countries. Authorities recently said that no final decision had been reached on her stoning sentence and that she must remain in prison. Her lawyer, Sajjad Houtan Kian, also remains in prison for having had the courage to defend her and other women condemned to stoning sentences. He has been given the outrageous sentence of four years imprisonment, been put under a lot of pressure and lost 20 kilos (44 pounds) as a result of his devotion to his profession and his principles. The campaign to Save Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani continues to speak out in defence of humanity, and against the barbaric punishment of stoning everywhere. It has mobilised immense pressure against and condemnation of the Islamic regime of Iran from millions across the globe. It will continue to do so until you adopt humane punishments and equal laws for men and women. As opponents of the death penalty in the United States, as well as internationally, on 11 July 2011, the International Day Against Stoning, we demand the immediate release of Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, her lawyer Sajjad Houtan Kian, and others facing stoning sentences. We also demand a complete end to the barbaric practice of death by stoning.

Statement from Meg Hixson: It deeply saddens me that in today’s world, a world that continues to grow and change every day, that there is a need for an international day against stoning. No such day should have ever had to have been brought into existence. This barbaric punishment is an unfathomable concept to most but for those in the Islamic Republic of Iran, among other countries, this is a very dark reality that they face and it must be stopped! For years we have heard the voices of those calling for an end to stoning but their voices have been silenced by the oppressive regimes that continue to enforce this horrific act. We can live in a world where such an inhumane punishment no longer exists. So this year, on this International Day against Stoning our voices must over power the regimes that seek to silence them and we must continue to fight for those who have fallen victim to this brutal act and for those who face it now.

Statement from Ophelia Benson, Editor Butterflies and Wheels: We are often told that religion is all about compassion, yet it is the “devout” regime in the Islamic Republic of Iran that thinks stoning to death is a good, holy, mandated-by-god punishment. Stoning is a monstrous, disgusting cruelty; it should not happen to anyone, anywhere, ever.

The Toronto District School Board (TDSB) is promoting segregation by adopting a policy that allows religious influence within the school system. TDSB recently permitted students at Valley Park Middle School on Overlea Blvd to have prayer services in the cafeteria. This is another attempt of political Islam to recruit youth. It will not take long before other religious leaders push for their own space in schools.

Homa Arjomand proclaims that“schools will become a battle ground between various religious groups. Segregation does not stop here. Soon under the influence of religious leaders with political agendas, there would be a huge confrontation between students of so called one faith with the children of another faith, undermining the enforcement of the secular school system that certainly plays an important role towards integration”.

“TheToronto District School Board is playing a dangerous game with children and it needs to stop right now before turning schools to a perfect breeding ground for the growth of extremists. Schools are supposed to be a place where children develop personal autonomy, critical thinking and reasoning; a place to achieve universal social values and not a base to recruit youth to various sects or cults.”

“The Government of Ontario needs to end interference of religion in all public sectors, in order to protect the wellbeing of children” added Ms. Arjomand.

A free press is critical to the growth and development of any society and to the survival and vibrancy of any democracy. Nigeria is said to have a free and independent media, and this is often interpreted to mean that, in Nigeria, journalists are going about their work without state interference. For me, this is a narrow understanding of freedom of the press, and this one-sided view has caused many to mischaracterize the situation of the media in the country. The government is just one out of many agents or actors that could undermine or muzzle the press. Religious agencies, drug cartels, multinationals and other business interests can hamper freedom of the press in a country.

Today, many people tend to think that in Nigeria, there is freedom of the press. But in actual fact there is not. In this piece I would like to point out a very disturbing trend in the Nigerian media: religious censorship. Religious censorship is very pronounced in the print and electronic media in the country. By this I mean that, today in Nigeria, there are views and reports that cannot be published or broadcast in the media because of religious sentiments, because such reports or perspectives are deemed to be offensive to the religious sensibilities of the faithful.

In principle, media agencies in Nigeria claim to be objective, factual and balanced in their reporting. They claim to embody ethical and professional journalism. But in practice this is not the case, particularly when it comes to religious issues.

In most cases, media agencies in Nigeria are biased, unethical and unprofessional in their reporting. Many of what we have as national newspapers – both privately and state owned – are in fact religious – Christian or Islamic or ‘chrislamic’ dalies whose ‘unwritten policy’ is to further these religious interests. Very often the newspapers do not reflect the diversity of views, opinions and perspectives in terms of religious belief and unbelief. Their news, reports and opinions are biased towards religions – Christianity and Islam only. Every week, most media agencies in the country devote a lot of time and space to mainly Christian and religious prayers, preaching and propagation. Most radio and television stations start their daily broadcast with Christian and/or Islamic prayers, devotions and reflections. Meanwhile such opportunities are not extended to those who profess other faiths or none. Still media agencies claim to be free, fair, impartial and objective in their reporting and publications.

Most media houses in Nigeria do not publish or broadcast views that are critical of religious doctrines particularly Christian and Islamic dogmas. So where is the objectivity, ethical and professional journalism when the perspectives of those who hold contrary opinions or those who belong to religious minorities or those who profess no faith are completely shut out or censored?

Some of our so-called state and privately owned newspapers, television and radio stations in Northern Nigeria only publish or broadcast Islamic or pro-Islam teachings and preaching. They do not approve the publication or broadcast of a perspective that is critical of Islam. And no one dares question this outrageous media policy.

Also in Southern Nigeria, there are some state or privately owned newspapers, radio and television stations that only publish or broadcast Christian or pro-Christian news and reports. Any report other than or critical of Christianity, no matter how factual and objective it is, will not be approved by the editorial or management team. Some of the radio and television stations in South East and South South are as good as the Vatican radio. They are Christian media outfits. One of the main reasons for religious censorship in the media is because our media agencies are owned or managed by Christian and Islamic fanatics who use their public offices or private businesses to promote their faiths. They regard their jobs, offices and businesses as tools of evangelism, jihad and religious propaganda. Their media agencies are extensions of their churches and mosques.

Also our media houses are populated with mostly journalists who double as priests, pastors, imams and Ustaz. And as those supposedly called by God or Allah, they do not want to report or be seen to be reporting or publishing anything critical or contrary to their faiths. They use their ‘pen’ or talents to defend their faith and further the cause of God or Allah.

Religious censorship is not good for our media and for the development of the country, particularly in this age of information technology. Some of the views which our electronic and print media houses suppress or censor get published any way. Many people who cannot have their religious or non-religious views published in the mainstream media, can now post or publish them on the internet. So media houses that practice religious censorship risk losing their credibility and market as a source of objective and reliable information.

In conclusion, Nigeria is a country whose democracy, peace, security and development is threatened by religious fundamentalism. Since independence, Nigeria has witnessed protracted religious crises mainly in Northern Nigeria. Thousands of Nigerians have lost their lives to religious riots. And recently an Islamist group, Boko Haram, launched a violent campaign against the government and state agencies. The members have carried out attacks on public places including the Force Headquarters in Abuja and have killed many security agents and civilians.

Nigerians need a free and uncensored media to safeguard their democracy and combat the dark and destructive influence of religions. The media agencies in the country must do away with religious censorship in other to generate ideas and reliable information which the state and its citizens need to tackle and address the menace of religious fanaticism and other faith-based problems.

If you’re looking for a diversion from fighting fashionable and religious nonsense, but you don’t want to miss your daily dose of sanctimony, look no further than the American funeral business. You’ll seldom find a culture as steeped in faux tradition, self-regard, mythology and jargon as the Dismal Trade. What the typical American endures—and pays for—when a family member dies would strike most readers from other countries as having a through-the-looking-glass quality. It would strike Americans that way, too, if most of us knew what went on behind the formaldehyde curtain.

Well, here’s a little peek for you. The following extract is from my book, co-written with Lisa Carlson, Final Rights: Reclaiming the American Way of Death. —Josh Slocum

Are you afraid of bugs? Does the thought of burial in the dank, dark earth leave you cold? Well, maybe a mausoleum is for you. Or maybe not.

Crypt space above ground has long been marketed as a “clean and dry” alternative to earth burial. Mausoleum operators aren’t shy about exploiting your squeamishness to sell you a slot. But from an engineering perspective, shelving whole human bodies behind an inch of wall space and inviting mourners to come “visit” them was never a good idea. Dead people decompose, and unless the mausoleum is properly engineered, they do it in a particularly nasty way.

A well-engineered mausoleum promotes air flow to dehydrate the bodies, with crypt slots angled backward to drain fluids that can breach the casket and run out the front. Yet many of these posthumous high-rises are shoddily constructed, and using the wrong kind of casket can lead to disaster. So-called sealer (or “protective”) caskets have a rubber gasket that seals the space between the lid and the bottom. That is exactly what you don’t want: Trapping moisture and gases causes the body to rapidly putrefy into a festering soup. People from around the country have filed suit against funeral homes, casket companies, and mausoleums for duping them into believing these “protective” caskets and above-ground crypts would keep mom clean and dry. Horrified families have sent us photographs showing liquefied remains inside the casket and gushing out onto the sidewalk.

Many in the industry know the truth, but conceal it in order to keep selling to the unwary public. There are at least four brands of Tyvek-type bags peddled in the mortuary trade journals that envelop the casket to “protect it,” as the ads coyly claim. But they’re not protecting the casket, they’re protecting the mausoleum from the casket:

Let Nature Take Its Course
We know what happens after the crypt is sealed. Your clients do not know, or do not want to know. Provide comforting visits over decades with Ensure-A-Seal’s new and improved Casket Protector. Durable and strong, the cover is designed for both metal and wood caskets. The ONE-WAY check valve allows gases to escape. The NEW seamless, chemically hardened fiberboard tray contains liquids. Don’t let natural processes destroy your facility’s reputation.

Carlson’s Funeral Ethics Organization newsletter unearthed a 1994 study on mausoleums by the Monument Builders of North America that examined how caskets held up over time in above-ground crypts:

MBNA found that the Catholic Cemetery Association was documenting an 86% failure rate for problems with wood and cloth-covered caskets, 62% for nonsealing metal, and 46% for ‘protective” or ‘sealer’ caskets. Even with the somewhat better results, the report states in bold print, ‘It is highly unlikely that such protective sealer metal caskets employ sufficient mechanisms to contain body fluids or gases.’

Betty Greiman learned the truth about mausoleums the hard way.

“The crypt was open to put his casket in and when we looked in, we saw that my mother’s casket was propped open with what looked like 2×4s. And I was hysterical,” she said to a reporter for WKRC in Cincinnati.

Greiman filed suit against Forest Lawn Cemetery in Erlanger, Ohio, after discovering the owners were propping open all the caskets to ventilate them. Ventilation is, of course, exactly what a sensible mausoleum operator wants, but propping open the coffins without telling the families?

We’ve long wondered why mausoleums would even accept sealer caskets, let alone require them, as some do. And why would funeral directors—the supposed professionals—even sell a sealer casket to a family choosing mausoleum burial? Perhaps it’s because many of them are genuinely (if inexcusably) confused. Many mausoleums require embalming on the grounds that it will prevent odors, but that won’t help for more than a few weeks or months. Apparently some undertakers actually believe this is an acceptable long-term solution.

So do some mausoleum managers. Slocum had a bizarre conversation with the manager of a Florida mausoleum in 2003. A woman from Michigan who wanted to bury her husband in a crypt they owned in Florida sent FCA copy of a letter from a “Planning Specialist” at Forest Hills Memorial Park and Funeral Home in Palm City, owned by Stewart Enterprises. In the letter, saleswoman Deanna Mitchell told the customer her husband would “need to be embalmed, and in at least an 18-gauge steel casket for placement into the mausoleum crypt.” The woman didn’t want to embalm her husband and saw no need to waste money on a heavy 18-gauge casket.

Slocum asked the saleswoman why the mausoleum required embalming. “For preservation,” she said. He then asked Stewart’s regional sales manager why Forest Hills required an 18-gauge casket. Bill Baggett tried to claim “bylaws from the state of Florida” required an 18-gauge; it took some pressing for him to admit these were merely the cemetery’s own bylaws (rules) that had been filed with the state regulatory office. So, why the 18-gauge? “Well, our 18-gauge caskets seal,” he said. Given the problems associated with sealer caskets in warm climates, Slocum asked why the cemetery would even want a sealer in its crypt.

“Over the years we’ve transferred many of our patients to different spaces and we’ve never had that problem,” Baggett replied.

Mr. Baggett must not read his trade journals. The weekly Funeral Service Insider published an article on “exploding casket syndrome” in 2003. FSI offered its readers “four approaches to consider: do nothing, cut chunks out of the rubber seal, leave off some of the casket hardware so air can get it, or just unseal the box completely. Cutting pieces from the casket seal (you know, the rubber gasket you paid hundreds more for because it would “protect” your loved one) was an idea from Curt Rostad, a well-known funeral director and industry commentator.
If you feel you must have mausoleum burial, take these precautions:

• Tour the buildings, and note any odors and any stains on the front of crypts or the floor or sidewalk beneath them.
• Do not purchase a sealer casket. If the mausoleum tells you these are required, you know all you need to know to cross the mausoleum off your list.
• It’s probably worth a few hundred dollars to buy an enclosure bag to zip up around the casket

Yesterday, I rescued for the second time an 8 year old girl, Esther Obot Moses who was branded a witch and exiled by her family in Nsit Ubium in Akwa Ibom state in Southern Nigeria.

Some weeks ago, I was informed by my local contacts that Esther, who was handed over to the Ministry of Women Affairs of the Akwa Ibom state government for proper care and rehabilitation, had returned to the ‘lunatic’, Okokon, who kidnapped her some time ago.

I met Esther and Okokon wearing pants in the same filthy house where I found them in January this year. Esther looked depressed and traumatized. Okokon, who is believed to have some mental problems, lives alone in a dirty two-room apartment filled with all sorts of rubbish. He has no wife or children. Okokon said that, this time around, Esther came to stay with him on her own.

[media id=27306 title=”rescue” width=”150″ height=”147″ ]

According to Esther, weeks after she was handed over to the Ministry for Women Affairs, officials from the Ministry came and dumped her with her father in her village in Nsit Ubium. But the father later drove her out again. He asked her to go back to where she came from. Esther said she had to return to the house of Okokon.

[media id=27307 title=”rescue2″ width=”150″ height=”147″ class=”aligncenter size-thumbnail wp-image-27307″ ]

I took Esther to a local police station in the state where she is staying at the moment. There are plans to take her to a privately owned orphange for proper care and rehabilitation.

[media id=27308 title=”rescue3″ width=”107″ height=”150″ class=”aligncenter size-thumbnail wp-image-27308″ ]

Esther’s case is a clear indication of the enormity of the problem of witchcraft accusations and child rights abuses in Akwa Ibom state, particularly the poor handling by the government of Akwa Ibom state. Since 2008, Akwa Ibom has enacted the child rights law with provisions that criminalize child witch stigmatization. It has also taken other measures to address the problem of child witch hunting.

But these measures fall short of tackling this complex and complicated menace. Akwa Ibom state still lacks the facilities including the personnel – care givers and social workers – to cater for and monitor affected children. Some of the alleged child witches handed over to the Ministry of Women Affairs have disappeared and cannot be accounted for. Some of them, like Esther, who were forcefully sent back to their families without proper reconciliation and rehabilitation, have since returned to the streets or to the abusive circumstances they were rescued from.

Instead of putting in place the necessary facilities by training or employing competent hands, setting up effective public enlightenment programs to dispel the myth of child witchcraft, and improving the enforcement of the child rights law, the government of Akwa Ibom state is busy clamping down on the programs of NGOs and child rights acitivists meant to address the same issue.

In September, humanists from across the Federation will  be gathering in Abuja for their national convention. This event, to be held at Vines Hotel Durumi, will be the first of its kind at the nation’s capital. It promises to be the largest gathering of non-religious people in the history of Nigeria. The convention marks the 15th anniversary of the Nigerian Humanist Movment (NHM). Founded in 1996, NHM provides a sense of community to non-religious people who often identify themselves severally as atheists, agnostics, freethinkers, skeptics, rationalist or brights. In the last 15 years, NHM has worked to ensure that the voice of non-believers is heard and that the humanist perspective is brought to bear on issues of national importance. NHM has been the rallying point for those who do not have a religion, those who renounce their religion, and those who criticize religions. NHM has provided a social space for all Nigerians who seek to lead a meaningful life free from the tyranny of religion, the orthodoxy of superstition and of belief in god or dogma.

In a deeply religious society like Nigeria organizing humanism has not been an easy task. In a country plagued by religious extremism, intolerance and bigotry, promoting humanism could be a dangerous undertaking. This convention will be a celebration of the success and survival of the growing non-religious community in the country. Incidentally there are still many Nigerians out there who are humanists but who do not know they are. Many Nigerians do not understand what humanism means.

They do not know that there is an alternative to religion and that humanism is such an alternative. Many Nigerian humanists do not know that a humanist group exists for them in the country. This convention will provide a platform to promote public knowledge and understanding of humanism and to strengthen organised humanism in the country.

The theme of the convention is Humanism as the Next Step. For two days humanists and human rights activists will be exploring why humanism is the next step for Nigerians. Participants will discuss different sub-themes of interest to humanists and the Nigerian public, including tackling religious crisis, realizing a meaningful dialogue among Nigerians of different religions or beliefs, how non-believers are treated in Nigeria, faith and superstition based human rights abuses, witch hunts, ritual killing and human sacrifice, and the rights of religious minorities including humanists and the like.

This convention will be used to register our humanist solidarity with all pe-minded individuals who are suffering and are forced to live in the closet due to religious hostility and antagonism.

At the event we shall pay tribute to all humanists across the country who have, in spite of the risks, spoken out openly and publicly in defence of the humanist outlook. We shall use the platform to remind the government of Nigeria of its duties to protect and defend all Nigerians of different faiths and none; to maintain neutrality in matters concerning religion; to stop privileging Christianity and Islam, to guarantee the equal rights of Nigerians whatever their religion or belief, and to urgently address the recurrent cases of religious crisis and rein in Islamic militants and jihadists who are terrorizing innocent citizens in northern Nigeria.

Prominent scholars, intellectuals, politicians and activists are expected to attend, to make presentations, and to lead and contribute to the debates, discussion and exchange of ideas.

The rescue by the Nigeria Police of 32 pregnant girls allegedly held by a human trafficking ring in Aba in south-eastern Nigeria has literally shocked the world. But to anyone acquainted with the ‘culture’ of women and child rights abuses in the country, it should not come as a surprise. The police raid has brought to global attention and knowledge new layers of horrific abuses and exploitation of women and children in the country.

According to the report, these girls, between the ages of 15 and 17 years, were locked up and used to ‘produce’ babies, who were then allegedly sold for ritual witchcraft purposes or adoption. Unicef estimates that at least 10 children are sold daily across Nigeria.

This estimation is on target. The sale of children is a painful and unfortunate reality in Nigeria. Particularly in south-eastern Nigeria, this criminal practice is not new. The sale of babies has been going on for some time. But bad governance, corruption in the police and justice system, a failure of human rights, lack of rule of law, selfishness, criminal silence and hypocrisy have all made it difficult and dangerous to tackle and address these atrocious schemes. The babies that are sold are often those delivered by teenagers or those babies of the so called higher caste girls whose fathers are from the lower caste.

• In a region where teenage pregnancy is regarded as a taboo and many girls who get pregnant resort to unsafe abortion or to throwing away their babies after delivery
• In a country where abortion is frowned on by most families, criminalized by the state and inaccessible to most girls, particularly those from poor homes
• In a situation where efforts to decriminalized abortion and improve the reproductive health and rights of women and girls are hampered by the churches and religious dogma
• In a society where childlessness is percieved as a ‘curse’ and childless couples are often desperate to pay or do anything to get a child
• In communities ravaged by poverty, desperation and get-rich-quick mentality

girls who get pregnant often find themselves in a very difficult situation. They are vulnerable and susceptible to abuses and exploitation.

Before now, many girls who became pregnant prefered procuring unsafe abortions from quacks – which often led to their death or to some irreparable health damage – or they threw away the babies after delivery, instead of giving birth and keeping children who would be ostracized and treated as ‘bastards’ and outcasts in the communities.

But today the trend has changed. Teenage pregnancy is no longer such an abomination. Teenage pregnancy is now a big deal and a thriving business. Teenage pregnancy is an income-generating scheme for some unscrupulous elements, syndicates and rings which sadly include the parents of these girls.

This illicit trade has many dimensions involving childless couples and ritualists. In some cases, some childless couples and their scouts prowl the villages and rural communities looking for girls with unwanted pregnancies whom they would pay peanuts to have their babies after delivery. As soon as they track down any girl who is pregnant, they provide her and her family with some money – an advance payment -and gifts, and encourage her to keep the pregnancy and not to abort it. This is after they had agreed on the price of the baby with the parents of the girl. In most cases some middlemen are involved in the negotiation of prices, and they recieve some commission at the end of the business. Usually, male babies cost more than female. The prices of babies range from hundreds to thousands of dollars, depending on the bargaining power of both parties and the middlemen. Another dimension involves the hospitals and clinics. Unfortuately many hospitals in the region have become ‘baby farms’. Some smart ‘childless couples’ now connive with hospital authorities to buy babies after delivery. These babies could be those whose mothers died after in the course of delivery or ‘unwanted’ babies of girls who became pregnant by chance – or those commissioned to carry such pregnancies at a fee like the girls recently rescued by the police.

There have been cases where some doctors and nurses reportedly claimed that some babies died immediately after delivery, while in fact, they stole and sold the babies as soon as they were delivered.

The discovery of the baby farm in south-eastern Nigeria is a clear indication of social and moral rot in the society. It underscores the need for cultural renewal and transformation. I hope the Nigerian authorities will take all the necessary measures to stamp out this evil immmediately.

In the middle of May, a report, The Causes and Context of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests in the United States, 1950-2010^[1], was presented to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops by researchers from John Jay College. Circulated more broadly on the 16^th of May, the document has (not without reason) been viewed as flawed to the point of being suspect.

Almost predictably from the usual quarters, the way in which the mere laity have viewed the report has been met with a near pre-reformation style of contempt. Apparently the masses need the clergy to spell it out for them!

In Australia, this high-handed misanthropy finds archetypal expression in Scott Stephens’ Catholic sexual abuse study greeted with incurious contempt^[2], in which a ranting jeremiad laments media standards on the grounds of a supposed incurious nature in relation to the Causes and Context report’s findings.

‘I suppose I should no longer be surprised by the self-righteous cynicism and seemingly wilful ignorance of the media when it comes to reporting on Catholic affairs. But it was the way that the Australian press allowed the findings of a recent study into The Causes and Context of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests in the United States, 1950-2010 to sail past with little more than a perfunctory acknowledgement of its existence, much less a serious engagement with its substance and implications, that has left me bristling.^[2]’ – Emphasis added.

Remember this. The standard is ‘serious engagement’ with ‘substance and implications’, and the charge is ‘self-righteous cynicism and wilful ignorance’. Don’t let these goal posts move.

Thanks to a suitably inspiring heads-up from Miranda Celeste Hale^[3], I’d spent a good deal of my free time in the days leading up to Stephens’ article reading the report, the previous Nature and Scope study^[4] (and its supplementary^[5]), appalled by what I was reading. Appalled not because it acknowledged priests had abused children (we all know that), but because the study had used a problematic definition of pedophilia, all while vaguely suggesting the moral turbulence of the 1960s and 1970s as somehow causal – please note my emphasis on vagueness.

(I could go on at length about the funding details, or the method of data collection and subsequent projections of the incidence of child abuse, but this has been addressed already at great length elsewhere by several writers).

It was on the matter of the definition of pedophilia that I sought elaboration from Stephens (or at least the ABC’s ‘Religion and Ethics’ portal), to see if certain concerns were understood, so I should first elaborate on these concerns myself.

Miranda Celeste Hale rightly points out that the definition of pedophilia used in the report deviates^[3]; that due to its terminology, sexual attraction toward and/or a sexual assault upon an eleven-to-thirteen year old, couldn’t be considered indicative of pedophilia. This variant terminology is seemingly used to reach a politically convenient conclusion.

‘It is worth noting that while the media has consistently referred to priest-abusers as “pedophile priests,” pedophilia is defined as the sexual attraction to prepubescent children. Yet, the data on priests show that 22 percent of victims were age ten and under, while the majority of victims were pubescent or postpubescent.^[1]’

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) defines pedophilia differently – specifically with a cut-off age of thirteen (with considerations made for the onset of pubescence in individual cases)^[6].

If you turn to page eleven of the report^[1], you will notice a graphical representation of how the Nature and Scope data has been grouped by the age groups of sexual abuse victims, and specifically, how the DSM cut-off age for pedophilia falls amidst the most populous group, rather than bounding it. The result being that according to the standard DSM definition, as Miranda points out in her post^[3], this ’22 percent of abuse victims’ line has the capacity for perpetuating gross underestimation if churned by the media uncritically.

While I agree with the churnalism concerns, I think more can be said on the matter.

Aside from the triviality of a potential public relations setback, what potential harm could have come of the report adhering more rigidly to DSM terminology? Conversely, other than potential public relations advantages, what harm could be done through the use of the report’s divergent definition?

An answer to the first question seems easy; ‘none’, which is itself quite damning, mandating considered attention by anyone undertaking serious media analysis of how the report is received.

The answer to the second question isn’t nearly as obvious.

The preventative measures recommended by the report (based on situational prevention models, education and accountability measures) focus upon limiting the opportunity for events of abuse to occur, rather than targeting the particular psychologies of child abusers. From this perspective, the question of whether priests psychologically capable of raping eleven-to-thirteen year olds, are or are not according to terminology, pedophiles, is largely a technical abstraction. An abstraction that currently doesn’t do much to guide guide policy in how to prevent the scenarios where these urges can be acted upon.

To caregivers and childcare workers who’ve undertaken anything like mandatory notification training, this approach will in general terms seem quite conventional. But limiting the discussion to this perspective, as politically convenient as it may be for religious apologetics, is irresponsible.

The history of child abuse prevention is short, and already fraught with change and revision. What if at some point in the future, a reliable psychological profile for child molesters were developed in line with the DSM definition? What if in future, such a profile could be used to filter the ordination of priests?

In any such event, the technical differences between the DSM and the Causes and Context study wouldn’t be at all trivial.

Given that any future psychological developments are more likely to be in-line with the DSM than the semantic idiosyncrasies of the Causes and Context report, an explanation of, and a justification for the difference is required, especially for us non-psychologists in the audience. Yet all we are left with in the way of justification, ostensibly, is that one definition is more flattering to reported child abusers than another.
If this ‘it’s not pedophilia if they’re over ten’ ethos gets too great a stranglehold in the Catholic Church’s attempts to deal with its own child abuse problems, or indeed, if it’s adopted as part of the standard language of religious apologetics, then I think this aspect of the terminology is worse than any potential churnalism of ’22 percent of victims’.

So what did Scott Stephens have to write on the matter?

‘Second, the study demonstrates that the overwhelming majority of victims of sexual abuse between 1950 and 2010 were male (81 per cent) and between the ages of eleven and fourteen (51 per cent). Meanwhile 27 per cent were aged fifteen to seventeen, 16 per cent were eight to ten, and only 6 percent were under the age of seven.^[2]’

While acknowledging the age groups of the victims, and clearly not diminishing the severity of the abuse, this does not address the capacity of the divergent terminology for misleading or prejudicing public discussion or policy formation.

‘Because the majority of the victims were pubescent or post-pubescent, the Causes and Context study rather controversially claims that it is not therefore strictly correct to refer to “paedophile priests” (paedophilia being defined as “the sexual attraction to prepubescent children”). While this is neither here nor there, and has no bearing on the methodology or substance of the study itself, it is a technical point that has generated unwarranted consternation among many in the media.^[2]’

Again, Stephens tells us nothing of the capacity of the study to mislead or to prejudice discussion, and even falls short of acknowledging the full definition used in the study – specifically the controversial cut-off age of ten years. You’ll understand then, when I write that I don’t think Stephens has demonstrated an understanding of the problem.

Seeking to have an understanding of the misleading nature of the definition (but not at this point its prejudicial nature) confirmed by Scott Stephens, or by the ABC’s Religion and Ethics portal, I attempted to engage them on Twitter. Stephens’ article being promoted by this very medium.

I thought it suitably charitable to assume Stephens may have been too distracted to notice the fine detail, rather than being deliberately obfuscatory – his ‘bristling’ at the time of writing and all that.

The response via the ABC Religion account was as follows.

‘That’s dealt with in the article. Neither here nor there. No impact on the findings. And not an excuse for the crimes.^[7]’

I’ll take that as a negative on any confirmation of understanding, and no, it wasn’t ‘dealt with’ unless you call dismissing out of hand dealing with something. More followed…

‘Mmmmm… no, not quite. Maybe you should read the study. Regardless, there’s no evaluation being made here.^[8]’

You may recall the charge being made against the Australian media coverage, was self-righteous cynicism and wilful ignorance – the standard to judge by being ‘a lack of serious engagement’ with ‘substance and implications’. I won’t be giving prizes for people working out who, according to this standard, I think is being a cynical, self-righteous ignoramus.

Now you’ll remember I took issue with some of the report’s vague suggestions about potential causes of the crisis of child abuse in the Catholic Church, particularly those pertaining to historical moral upheaval.

‘For the Causes and Context study, the social indicators found to be most relevant to the modeling of the change in incidence of sexual abuse are divorce, use of illegal drugs, and crime. Sexual abuse of a minor by a Catholic priest is an individual deviant act—an act by a priest that serves individual purposes and that is completely at odds or opposed to the principles of the institution. Divorce is an act also made for personal reasons that negates the institution of marriage. Illegal drug use and criminal acts violate social and legal norms of conduct, presumably at the will of the offender.^[1]’

Forget technical language like ‘the institution of marriage’, it’s how the report substantiates a purported relationship with clerical child abuse that has me concerned. Or rather, how it doesn’t.

Citing Greenberg’s Time Series Analysis of Crime Rates^[9], the Causes and Context reports observes the statistical connection between divorce rates and two indicators of crime.

‘If the data for the annual divorce rate are compared to data for the annual rate of homicide and robbery, the time-series lines move in tandem. From stable levels in 1965, the rates increase sharply to a peak at or soon after 1980 and then begin to fall. This pattern is indicative of the period effects that can be seen in the Nature and Scope data on the incidence of sexual abuse by priests.^[1]’ – Emphasis added.

But just how ‘indicative’ is this ‘pattern’?

Greenberg, after using a Johanssen test to demonstrate cointegration, suggests a relationship between divorce, homicide and robbery.

‘It does not seem likely that this relationship is a direct, causal one or that people who are divorcing have exceptionally high divorce rates. More likely, divorce is an indicator of a strain in a fundamental social institution – the nuclear family. It is this strain that leads some individuals to kill, whether or not they themselves divorce. The divorce rate in the United States rose dramatically between 1960 and 1980, a time when gender relations and ideologies were undergoing major transformations, putting great strain on many families and leading some of them to divorce.^[9]’ – Emphasis added.

Gender relations and nuclear families – how exactly do celibate priests fit into the gender relations within nuclear families? I’m going to be brave and suggest an outlandish notion; that it’s a little difficult to experience the pressure of having a partner, two-point-four kids and a family dog during a period of social upheaval, when you’re a virginal bachelor.

Conveniently, the specifics of the relationship suggested by Greenberg remain unmentioned by the Causes and Context report.

But this isn’t the crux of my objection. It gets worse…

It’s been a common refrain in the criticism of the report in question, that old truth that correlation doesn’t equal causation. This is an important realisation, but I think it ultimately insufficient in appreciating what I take to be a fuller extent of the problem; establishing correlation is still useful, but in this case, questionable.

Unlike Greenberg’s Time Series Analysis of Crime Rates^[9], Causes and Context^[1] doesn’t even attempt to demonstrate a statistical relationship between the purported causes and effect. There isn’t a whiff of a regression analysis of any kind on the matter.

Whatever you may think of the relationship proposed by Greenberg, at least the data are associated statistically. Perhaps Greenberg’s suggested cause is true, or perhaps divorce, murder and robbery are together all driven by another unrecognised factor, perhaps something such as lead contamination. At least it’s demonstrated that the studied indicators move together (i.e. that they’re cointegrated).

It’s important to realise of Greenberg’s cited work, that owing to practical limitations, analysis of only two of six ‘index offenses’ are undertaken; robbery and homicide, from a list of offenses also including rape, assault, burglary and automotive offenses. Greenberg explicitly stops short of affirming the cointegration of these other indices (or by implication, any index other than the two analysed) with divorce rates.

Either as a sub-set of rape, or on its own, further analysis would be required to demonstrate a statistical relationship between child sexual abuse by priests, and factors such as divorce. Yet if the report team did undertake such analysis, the Causes and Context report singularly fails to document it. (Are the data even amenable to this?)

And no, simple visual inspection of a graph and pointing out that two or more things peak in the same decade does not demonstrate a correlation, not statistically at least. If correlations can be plucked out of the air so casually, we may as well throw out Pearson’s r and start scouring charts to find ‘correlations’ with fluctuations in bird migrations, trends in hairstyles, or the motions of the planets.

(Although the latter option, astrology, it has to be said, may at least attract Templeton funding, so there’s that).

Returning to the coal face at the ABC, how did Scott Stephens report the matter?

‘…those ordained before 1960 tended not to commit abuse until the 1960s and 70s, while those ordained in the 1960s and 70s tended to commit abuse very shortly thereafter. This would suggest that the foetid cultural soil of the 60s and 70s proved uncommonly conducive to the commission of sexual abuse.^[2]’

The jeremiad continues! Foetid cultural soil!

No, this does not suggest in any serious manner that a cause of child sexual abuse by priests is the culture of the time (or at least the parts thereof found unpalatable or otherwise convenient to blame). Not unless your definition of ‘serious’ includes wish-thinking.

I’m going to hazard a guess myself (because guessing is what’s going on) – that as a Coakley fan, pesky things like correlation coefficients are far too reductionist, too scientismist, for a sophisticated theologian like Stephens.

He goes on.

‘This line of reasoning has been characterised as the “blame Woodstock explanation,” designed to give the Catholic Church some alibi for its crimes. It does no such thing. Indeed, there can be no more damning indictment than that the Church had so imbibed the proclivities of the age that it reproduced them in its own life.^[2]’

What incredible narcissism! The great crime of the church is that when they drifted amongst the unwashed masses, their unsoiled, virginal feet touched the ground! The message to priests is that they must float just above the rest us; low enough to remain truly penitent, high enough not to get our muck on them.

I get the distinct impression Stephens believes the church occupies moral high-ground by default, a secular world tasked with proving otherwise – in purely ecumenical terms of course. What a merry-go-round we’d all have if we allowed ourselves to be set this task!

Critical thinkers will do well to recognise and avoid such pitfalls.

Whatever Stephens base-assumptions about the church morality may be, if the grandeur doesn’t give it all away, the credulity in uncritically wolfing down the ‘blame Woodstock explanation’ exposes Stephens’ fabulation.

‘…to discount what I have called “the foetid cultural soil of the 60s and 70s” as a factor out of hand, quite frankly, suggests an almost delusional belief in the health and progress of Western culture.^[2]’

What Stephens doesn’t seem to understand, is that the study doesn’t demonstrate a statistical correlation, much less the causal nature of a ‘foetid cultural soil’. (And no amount of Stephens’ penchant for citing sexual liberals justifying incest or pedophilia, such as in this case, Shulamith Firestone or Daniel Cohn-Bendit, will change this.)

So how to cap all this off?

‘The pope’s determination to purge the Church of what he has repeatedly called the “filth” of abuse and concealment, his pastoral care of so many of the victims of abuse, and his insistence on the Church’s “deep need to re-learn penance, to accept purification, to learn on one hand forgiveness but also the need for justice,” distinguishes him not merely as the person who has done more than any other to eradicate sexual abuse in the Catholic Church.

Benedict XVI is also the man who can best bring this desperately evil chapter in the Church’s life to a close.^[2]‘

Stephens started his article lamenting the poor standards of the media in its appraisal of the Causes and Context study, for not realising what he’s uncritically adduced from the report, and this he calls ‘self-righteous cynicism and wilful ignorance’. That he concludes not by reaffirming this criticism with the facts he’s asserted, instead diverting with his final paragraphs to argue the standard pabulum of apologia for the current Pope, is revealing.

By the end of this long line of sophistry he’s abandoned his original line of argument, no longer even bothering to pretend.

In undertaking this jeremiad, Stephens has demonstrated his own inability or unwillingness for ‘serious engagement’ with ‘substance and implications’. That the topic of discussion is so crucial, so incredibly serious, makes Stephens’ overriding ideological preoccupations all the more disgraceful.

Notes and References

[1] John Jay College Research Team (2011) ‘Causes and Context of Sexual Abuse of Minors By Catholic Priests In The United States, 1950-2010’, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, <PDF file: http://usccb.org/mr/causes-and-context/causes-and-context-of-sexual-abuse-minors-by-catholic-priests-in-the-united-states-1950-2010.pdf>.

[2] Scott Stephens (2011) ‘Catholic sexual abuse study greeted with incurious contempt‘, Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

[3] Miranda Celeste Hale (2011) ‘A worthless and dangerous report‘, Miranda Celeste.

[4] John Jay College Research Team (2004) ‘The Nature and Scope of the Problem of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests and Deacons in the United States‘, John Jay College of Criminal Justice.

[5] John Jay College Research Team (2006) ‘Supplementary Report: The Nature and Scope of the Problem of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests and Deacons in the United States 1950-2002‘, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, <PDF file: http://www.usccb.org/ocyp/JohnJayReport.pdf>.

[6] American Psychiatric Association (2000) ‘Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders’, Fourth Edition.

[7] ABC Religion (2010) Twitter status, Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

[8] ABC Religion (2010) Twitter status, Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

[9] David Greenberg (2001) ‘Time Series Analysis of Crime Rates’, Journal of Quantitative Criminology, Vol. 17, No. 4.

Last year, at a women’s community centre in Kabul I met Hamida.* A Herati, she was staying with relatives in the teeming capital, after her husband left her destitute when he left to go work in Iran, where she suspected he maintained another family. She had been married to him for seven years before divorcing him three years ago. In her married life, she had experienced extraordinary abuse at the hands of both her husband and her in-laws, with whom she lived. After making the courageous decision to leave her husband, she tried to return to her father’s household but was turned away, hence the reason she was boarding with an aunt and an uncle in Kabul, far away from her native Herat. A survivor of domestic violence, a divorcee, illiterate and uneducated, Hamida had lived a tumultuous life and bore the scars of years of drudgery in a joyless marriage.

Here’s the thing about Hamida: she’s 17. Sixteen when I met her last spring.

After her mother died, her father sold her in marriage at the age of seven, in exchange for another family’s seven-year-old girl who became her father’s bride. When the abuse became too much to endure, Hamida fled from her bridal home. She was 14 and had already been a wife for seven years.

Shunned by all her relatives in Herat, including her own father, she made her way to Kabul where she was taken in by an aunt and uncle who are kind to her but too poor to keep her under their roof indefinitely. But neither can she return to Herat, where she’s considered a disgrace who dishonoured her father by leaving her abusive husband. She had no skills, no work experience and no plan of what to do next. Hamida was being driven mad with anxiety and hopelessness. In the hours I spent talking with Hamida, I never her saw her smile even once. She felt psychologically defeated and could see no reason to continue living.

For the cultural relativists who would defend child marriage, the story of Hamida and millions of others like her should make it clear that there is nothing to romanticize about the practice of child marriage. It’s a universally miserable and despicable affair, a social structure that sanctifies the sexual abuse of minors and steals childhoods away from unsuspecting little girls who are rarely privy to what is about to happen to them. Child marriage denies education to millions of girls, and assaults the bodies of girls who end up pregnant before their own bodies are fully developed, and they frequently die in pregnancy or childbirth as a result. When they survive pregnancy, they have children who are often unhealthy or malnourished, and have a greater chance of dying in infancy. And yet despite these well established consequences, globally one in every seven girls is forced into marriage before the age of 15, translating to 100 million girls being married in the next decade, or “about 25,000 children married every day for the next 10 years,” according to one estimate.

A recent photo essay in Foreign Policy on child marriage in Afghanistan shows through image the surreal world where children have real weddings rather than make-believe weddings. It’s a world where children are paraded around as adults, draped in white wedding gowns, teetering in oversized highheels, and adorned with gaudy make-up. It’s not a game of dress-up, but a ritual wherein tiny, innocent daughters are handed over by their parents to older men who, after the wedding ceremony, will permanently traumatize them by raping their small bodies, an experience no one will take the time to explain or prepare them for in advance.

And yet, it’s a ritual fiercely protected by numerous societies in which entire communities are complicit, despite minimum marriage ages for girls in most countries of the world, as Cynthia Gorney writes in a recent National Geographic article examining the persistence of the practice in several countries, including Afghanistan:

Forced early marriage thrives to this day in many regions of the world arranged by parents for their own children, often in defiance of national laws, and understood by whole communities as an appropriate way for a young woman to grow up when the alternatives, especially if they carry a risk of her losing her virginity to someone besides her husband, are unacceptable.

Child marriage is firmly anchored in the notion that the purity of a community is manifested in the modesty and asexualism of women and girls so that they serve as a kind of symbolic barometer of “honour.” Meanwhile, men are largely free not only to seek pleasure in their sex lives but also in many cases to venture into the darker sides of their sexual urges, acting on perversions that are written off with a wink and a knowing smile, men just being men you know. It’s within such a system that men can rape and women rape victims are then punished for having extramarital sex (zina), such as was mandated by the Hudood Ordinance of Zia-al-haq’s Pakistan. And it’s within such a system that the need to protect a girl’s virginity until marriage (or even just to avoid rumours of prosmicuity) trumps the need to protect her from rape and sexual molestation by an adult male.

This is very obviously a situation where an obsession with reputation and modesty has spun into nonsensical madness, where entire communities are behaving delusionally, blind to anything but the fear that a girl from their family, their street, their neighbourhood might show too much skin, look at a boy the wrong way, sleep with someone without being married to them, or even worse, fall in love of her own volition. In their blindness, the piercing physical and emotional pain that child marriage (which is inseparable from child rape) imposes on daughters that families purport to love, and the broader harm that child marriage brings to societies who disable their female populations from being contributing agents of their society, is considered a casualty sacrificed towards a greater purpose.

The wrongheaded worship of women’s modesty and premarital virginity, and the association of women’s bodies to cultural honour and purity must be unravelled, and the tragedy of the continued practice of child marriage exposed for what it is: a guise for male pedophiliac behaviour and a system designed to maim women into submission. In the West, we must cease being so polite about a cultural practice we are often loathe to criticize for fear of offending others. And in Afghanistan, religious leaders must publicly and unequivocally shame the practice, in a country where the average female marriage age is 15. The Afghan Government must act aggressively to bring to justice adults who perpetuate child marriage and to publicize the harmful impact of child marriage on girls’ health and on the children they bear, as well as on the social and economic standing of communities.

Child marriage is a health and human rights crisis that has seamlessly transitioned from the Taliban’s Government of Misogyny into the Afghanistan on the receiving end of billions of dollars of foreign aid and the site of a plethora of altruistic efforts to improve the lot of women and girls. It should not be happening under the noses of an international community that says it wants to strengthen women’s rights in Afghanistan. It should not be occurring with impunity in a country that has signed the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and which has a Constitution that says there shall be gender equality and a minimum marriage age of 16 years for females. But it’s occurring and it’s thriving, and it’s a travesty we should wipe clean from this earth.

*A pseudonym.

We recently learned that former California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who recently separated from his wife Maria Shriver, fathered a son thirteen years ago with another woman. Worse, the mother of this child was the family’s trusted housekeeper for 20 years, and Schwarzenegger did not tell Shriver about the infidelity or the child until earlier this year. We also saw the initiation of sexual assault charges this week against French politician, economist and International Monetary Fund (IMF) director Dominique Strauss-Kahn. According to police reports, Strauss-Kahn came out of the bathroom of a New York hotel room naked while a female housekeeper was cleaning the room, chased her through the hotel room, cornered her, and forced her to perform oral sex on him before she finally escaped his attack. These are two sets of revelations about two powerful men, yet they have much in common. Both are only the latest and most publicized events in lives characterized by rampant contempt for and abuse of women. And, neither man’s lifelong misogyny would have been possible in the absence of a culture that continues to abet and excuse it.

Schwarzenegger’s entire political career would have been unthinkable without a concerted effort to sanitize reports of his treatment of women. And while he’s never been charged with sexual assault as Strauss-Kahn currently is, that may be just a matter of luck. Numerous women complained of enduring sexist remarks from Schwarzenegger, and a total of 16 women stated that they had been groped and physically humiliated by him. Schwarzenegger also once told the porn magazine Oui that he’d participated in the “gangbang” of a “black girl” at a Gold’s Gym, and we should note that the term “gangbang” is ambiguous regarding the issue of consent (1). Yet, thanks to a camera-mugging appearance on “Oprah” and a general chorus of shoulder-shrugging from the media, Schwarzenegger’s past was carefully edited to downplay or dismiss his misogyny. The women who claimed to have been groped were just exaggerating of course, since how could we expect women to be the final authority on what happened to their bodies? The interview with Oui was written off as youthful boasting – although even if that were true, a good follow-up question would’ve been to ask what kind of man thinks that telling stories about such despicable treatment of women improves his likability. Not only was there little real investigation into his past behaviors toward women, but when there was an attempt to engage discussions about it, many in the public reacted with outrage. When the L.A. Times ran a story about Schwarzenegger’s groping in 2003, just prior to the gubernatorial election, at least 10,000 readers cancelled their subscriptions and many alleged that the story was a politically motivated smear job (2). Schwarzenegger, of course, went on to win the election handily.

The allegations against Strauss-Kahn are also the latest in a personal pattern that’s managed to escape serious detection before now. The French journalist Tristane Banon claims that Strauss-Kahn attempted to rape her in 2002. She did not press charges initially, but media reports during the last week suggest she may be preparing to file legal charges related to the alleged attack (3). In 2008, the IMF formally investigated charges that Strauss-Kahn had an affair with a married subordinate, and that he used his position of power and authority to coerce her participation in the relationship. The board declined to take action against Strauss-Kahn, who patched over the incident by issuing an apology for the affair (4). Of course, neither this history nor the details of the current assault allegations has deterred Strauss-Kahn supporters from contributing elaborate defenses that often read like the output of a brainstorming session at a creative writing workshop. Strauss-Kahn is just a horny guy, we’re told, and possibly a sex addict who simply can’t help himself. Besides, you know how French culture is, right – grabbing a breast is their way of shaking hands. Many other people have added that surely, rich and powerful men like Strauss-Kahn don’t need to rape people, especially when they have his reputation as a “Great Seducer.” (Some of those “seductions,” as we’ve already seen, allegedly involved nonconsensual physical contact, but surely it’s just tedious to point that out). We’ve also had numerous examples of old-fashioned “boys will be boys” rationalizations and victim blaming, which amount to saying that the housekeeper simply didn’t try hard enough not to get raped. And not to be outdone by such trite pseudo-explanations, former Nixon speechwriter Ben Stein adds that overweight old men like Strauss-Kahn couldn’t possibly commit rape, and who ever heard of an economist raping someone (5)? Assault charges refuted, Q.E.D. (One of many problems with Stein’s explanation, for those interested, is that in fact, there have been some prominent cases of economists convicted of rape, and that in general, real-life rapists don’t conform to the popular stereotype of a deranged man lying in wait for his victim in a bush outside a bedroom window).

Sadly, both Schwarzenegger and Strauss-Kahn have benefited from the long running trend of excusing bad behavior by men on the grounds that it’s simply what men do, and can’t be expected to change. This trend is helped along by a stiff undercurrent of largely unquestioned and unexamined misogyny in our culture, which makes offenses committed against women seem unworthy of serious outrage. Some of the inability to understand the treatment of women may also be attributable to what scholar Russell K. Robinson calls “perceptual segregation” : members of a relatively privileged group (e.g., men) interpret acts of discrimination toward a less privileged group (e.g., women) as being less serious than members of the disadvantaged group do (6). Put together, these factors create a culture that either actively, or through unawareness, sustains attitudes of male entitlement and misogyny, which in turn sustain the assumptions of the culture that created them. We get the both the belief that everything men do is by definition what they had to do, and that if they do it to women, it really doesn’t matter much anyway.

This culture, our culture, is one in which misogynistic language and comments rarely attract much attention – where in fact, the abuse of women by some famous men is seen as a sign of virile righteousness. In this culture, somewhere between ¼ and 1/5 of women consistently report that men have raped them, and yet it is women who are lectured to about the need to prevent rape – usually by restructuring their entire lives so as not to attract those uncontrollable male urges we’re always told about. It’s a culture where it’s common for male sales persons to entertain clients by taking them to strip clubs, giving their female counterparts the choice of either coming along despite possible objections, or not going and thus being disadvantaged in the quest for clients and for the all important perception of being a “team player.” In fact, recent reports indicate that a German insurance firm rewarded top male salesmen by giving them access to prostitutes at a corporate-sponsored orgy (7). Ours is a culture where women still are not paid equally to men for equal work, are still disproportionately saddled with childcare duties, and still lack autonomy in reproductive health and choice. It’s a culture where male elected representatives can vote to redefine rape in order to deny abortions to rape survivors – one legislator even proposed to eliminate all abortion coverage on standard insurance plans, even for female rape survivors, and then went on to suggest that women should “plan ahead” by buying supplemental coverage just in case someone rapes them one day. Finally, it’s a culture in which the continuing existence of sexism is enabled by the fact that so many men dismiss suggestions that it still exists, and that something they have just said or did may perpetuate it, with reactions ranging from defensiveness to condescension. In a moving and excellent post at the feminist site Shakesville, writer Melissa McEwan describes her own experiences in dealing with men who refuse to acknowledge their sexist behavior:

My mistrust is not, as one might expect, primarily a result of the violent acts done on my body, nor the vicious humiliations done to my dignity. It is, instead, born of the multitude of mundane betrayals that mark my every relationship with a man—the casual rape joke, the use of a female slur, the careless demonization of the feminine in everyday conversation, the accusations of overreaction, the eyerolling and exasperated sighs in response to polite requests to please not use misogynist epithets in my presence or to please use non-gendered language (“humankind”).
There are the insidious assumptions guiding our interactions—the supposition that I will regard being exceptionalized as a compliment (“you’re not like those other women”), and the presumption that I am an ally against certain kinds of women. Surely, we’re all in agreement that Britney Spears is a dirty slut who deserves nothing but a steady stream of misogynist vitriol whenever her name is mentioned, right? Always the subtle pressure to abandon my principles to trash this woman or that woman, as if I’ll never twig to the reality that there’s always a justification for unleashing the misogyny, for hating a woman in ways reserved only for women. I am exhorted to join in the cruel revelry, and when I refuse, suddenly the target is on my back. And so it goes.
There are the jokes about women, about wives, about mothers, about raising daughters, about female bosses. They are told in my presence by men who are meant to care about me, just to get a rise out of me, as though I am meant to find funny a reminder of my second-class status. I am meant to ignore that this is a bullying tactic, that the men telling these jokes derive their amusement specifically from knowing they upset me, piss me off, hurt me. They tell them and I can laugh, and they can thus feel superior, or I can not laugh, and they can thus feel superior. Heads they win, tails I lose (8).

There’s a standard narrative about the way feminism has affected relationships between men and women – especially in heterosexual relationships. It goes something like this: A long time ago, men and women fell in love.  Their relationships weren’t perfect (what in life ever is?), but they worked, because men and women each had distinct, well-defined roles. But women’s liberation changed everything, and made women aware of desires and needs they never knew they had, and bewildered men didn’t know how to respond. This narrative is broadly accepted, even across the political spectrum, but there are elements missing from it. It either directly or implicitly blames a movement to end inequality for problems that were caused by inequality, for starters. But it also ignores the fact that the happy days of male and female relationships weren’t equally happy for women, as well as the sense of male entitlement that frequently has caused the unhappiness. This is the attitude that unquestioningly assumed that women existed to be helpmates and sources of spousal and maternal wisdom, rather than to live for their own purposes. It’s also an attitude that rationalizes different, unequal roles for women and men based on assumed essential differences, including differences in sexuality, and uses these assumed differences to gloss over disrespectful or even violent behavior. Men who are unfaithful to their wives couldn’t help it, based on this model, because they simply have a greater need for sex than women do. The time-honored tradition of bachelor parties also is based on this idea – it frames the man’s commitment to one woman as a supreme sacrifice because of the man’s presumably greater sexual appetite, and such a noble sacrifice surely entitles him to an evening of doing whatever he wishes to women’s bodies.   In a heartbreaking essay entitled “How My Fiancé Ruined Our Marriage Before it Even Began,” writer Gayle Cole relates the permanent damage done to her relationship with her ex-husband because of the bachelor party that he and his male friends believed he was entitled to have:

In the 48 hours remaining before our wedding, Larry desperately lobbied to maintain his good-guy status.”It wasn’t cheating!” he told me, channeling Bill Clinton. He did not have intercourse, therefore it wasn’t sex. He even thought that I might be reassured by the fact that the strippers brought bouncers along to make sure “nothing got out of hand” and that he didn’t even get an erection during the whole three-hour show. He genuinely believed the party-line he force-fed me: “My bachelor party was normal and acceptable, it’s your reaction to it that is screwed up.” All his compatriots eagerly provided the back-up he needed. They patted him on the back and said that what he’d done, within the sacred confines of a bachelor party, didn’t mean a thing.

To me, the bachelor party felt like a betrayal perpetrated not just by Larry, but by my male friends in attendance. Their party games intended not just to entertain the groom, but to humiliate me. The message was that the poor bastard marrying me was going to be stuck with this one, insufficient girl the rest of his life, so he needed to get a long last taste of the goodies he’d be missing.

Hours before the ceremony, I told Larry that if he could promise he had confessed every single awful detail and he would agree to go to couples counseling, I would go through with our plans. Tearfully, holding my hand, he promised. I sobbed my way up the aisle, through the vows, and back down the aisle. The only thing I remember is a sermon about truth, and trying not to look at the best man.

On our honeymoon, on the private island off the coast of New England, I jolted awake one night realizing I had failed to ask Larry about the threat of sexually transmitted diseases. Hesitantly, he admitted that he needed a few follow-up HIV tests performed as a result of having bled from a bite he sustained on his penis while the wrist-bound strippers used their mouths to collect dollar bills from his lap. He’d had a baseline test already. “The doctor advised me not to tell you,” he said. “He told me that you have a better chance of dying in a plane crash than contracting AIDS from a human bite.” That was not the only new detail to emerge. I also learned that Larry wasn’t ambushed into the kind of party he didn’t want, as I’d been led to believe. Peer pressure didn’t make him do it; he booked the hotel room on his own credit card, and called around for strippers (9).

Yes, it’s true that there are differences between some of the behaviors discussed here. The use of sexist language is, of course, not the same thing as rape. But both behaviors are made possible by the culture of entitlement, and the way it shapes and then excuses the masculinity of many men. A culture in which many men see nothing wrong with making misogynistic remarks, with subsuming the rights and feelings of women to their own, or excusing the sexist behavior of other men is exactly the kind of culture where high frequencies of sexual violence will occur. The behaviors lie on a continuum that is more fluid than most people may want to acknowledge. Many rapists have previous histories of other sexual offenses including groping and street harassment, and studies have shown that men who profess belief in various “rape myths” (such as that women dressed a certain way are “asking for it”) are more likely to commit rape themselves.

Schwarzenegger and Strauss-Kahn are not aberrations, but recognizable products of this culture, distinguishable mostly by their fame and power. Of course their power, is a large part of the problem. Those who argue that men of influence such as Strauss-Kahn wouldn’t need to rape completely miss the point, because it’s that power that has enabled him to discourage previous legal actions and survive past investigations of his behavior with his privileges and sense of entitlement intact. It’s Schwarzenegger’s power that helped him to expunge his record of contempt for women, and to be rewarded with even greater status. Power is both a stereotypical feature of traditional masculinity and one of its sustaining forces. As the examples of these two men show, this power is often a power to control women, and to defuse criticisms of that control. The cycle can only be broken by admitting that the problem goes deeper than a handful of famous men, by holding the hidden misogyny of our culture up to scrutiny, and by demanding real changes in the attitudes that enable it. 

Ironically, Maria Shriver recently wrote a blog post titled “Is the Model of Masculinity Changing in America,” in which she wondered if new models of masculinity would replace the swaggering bravado of much traditional masculinity. Let’s hope so, Maria. The kind of masculinity that defines itself by subordinating women is full of shit, and it’s time to stop making excuses for it.

1). Pollitt, Katha. 2006. Virginity or Death! And Other Social and Political Issues of Our Time. New York: Random House.  

2). Harding, Kate. “Schwarzenegger, Strauss-Kahn, and the Media’s Groping Problem.” Posted May 18, 2011 at the RH Reality Check website, at http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2011/05/18/schwarzenegger-strausskahn-medias-groping-problem.

3) Willsher, Kim. “Dominique Strauss-Kahn faces further claim of sexual assault.” The Guardian. May 16, 2011.

4) Thomas, Jr., Landon. “Woman in 2008 Affair is Said to Have Accused I.M.F. Director of Coercing Her.” The New York Times. May 16, 2011.

5). North, Anna. “Ben Stein Offers Worst Possible Reaction to IMF Chief Accusations.” Posted May 17, 2011 at the Jezebel website at http://jezebel.com/5802816/ben-stein-offers-worst-possible-reaction-to-imf-chief-accusations.

6). Robinson, Russell K. “Perceptual Segregation.” Columbia Law Review, Volume 108:1093-1180.

7) Evans, Stephen. “German Insurer Munich Re held orgy for salesmen.” Posted May 20, 2011 at the BBC News website at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13454160.

8). McEwan, Melissa. “The Terrible Bargain We Have Regretfully Struck.” Posted August 14, 2009 at the Shakesville website at http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2009/08/terrible-bargain-we-have-regretfully.html.

9. Cole, Gayle. “How My Fiancé Ruined Our Marriage before It Even Began.” Posted in “Fall 2002” at http://www.indiebride.com/essays/cole/index.html.

On May 10, 2011, the Commission of Inquiry into Witchcraft Accusations and Child Rights Abuses, established by the Government of Akwa Ibom State and led by Hon. Justice Godwin Abraham, concluded its sitting which was initially held at Akwa Ibom State Judiciary headquarters, Uyo, and was later adjourned to Idongesit Nkanga Secretariat, Uyo and then to Nigeria High Commission, London, United Kingdom.

On May 16, 2011, a mere six days later, Mrs. Eunice Thomas, Akwa Ibom State’s infamous Commissioner for Women Affairs, together with her team, stormed the premises of Child’s Rights and Rehabilitation Network (CRARN), a non-governmental organisation (NGO), with a centre at Esit Eket, abducted over one hundred of its children, forced them into Akwa Ibom Transport Company (AKTC) coaster buses and drove them to Akwa Ibom State Special Children Centre, Uyo.

Interestingly, the Commission of Inquiry into Witchcraft Accusations and Child Rights Abuses made a finding on the said centre to the effect that it is understaffed and lacks adequate facilities to cater for as few as fifty children. Moreover, even its few staffers are ill-trained; and they freely profess belief in witchcraft, and that the children under their charge are indeed witches as charged.

It is difficult to agree that Mrs. Eunice Thomas’s ill-considered action was approved by the Government of the State or taken in the best interest of the special class of children who are supposed to be an important part of her charge. However, assuming without conceding that her action was sanctioned by the Governor of Akwa Ibom State, His Excellency now has a grave duty to justify his action as it was not based on the findings of the Commission whose report is pending.

The unvarnished truth is that the Commissioner for Women Affairs, during her evidence before the Commission of Inquiry, clearly took a very heavy beating. She demonstrated criminal ignorance and incredible incompetence in the running of her Ministry. For instance, she did not know the actual number of children in her custody; she had no idea of the number of child-shelter centres in Akwa Ibom State; and she admitted that she had never made any effort to ensure compliance with the Child’s Rights Law of Akwa Ibom State. These shortcomings are both shocking and tragic.

Moreover, the very honourable Commissioner claimed on oath that every Saturday she visits all of the four orphanages in Akwa Ibom State run by the Government of the State. She also claimed to have issued certificates of custody rights to NGOs other than CRARN. These were all lies – to her knowledge. And the Commissioner was on oath!

Having realised the total disaster and fiasco that was her testimony and the coup de grace of a sack awaiting her, she is now making frantic efforts to not only save her job but also position herself for reappointment into the next Cabinet to be constituted by the Governor of the State who secured a fresh term of office in the nationwide gubernatorial elections of April 26, 2011. Clearly, the good Commissioner is more concerned about maintaining her exalted position in the administration than she is with the fate of the embattled children.

As the honourable, courageous, independent and respectable Commission of Inquiry of Hon. Justice Godwin Abraham found out, CRARN Centre is by far the most qualified to keep children branded as witches, compared to any of the centres maintained by the Government of Akwa Ibom State under the direct supervision of Mrs Eunice Thomas.

Based on the foregoing, we urge the Government of Akwa Ibom State, as matter of national emergency, to:

1. Relieve Mrs Eunice Thomas of her appointment forthwith; and

2. Commence a robust and all-round implementation of the Child’s Rights Law of Akwa Ibom State.

The Government of Akwa Ibom State should take note that should it fail to comply with the above minimum demands; we will be constrained to deploy all measures at our disposal to enforce the fundamental rights of children forced into homes that are not habitable.

We commend to you the time-honoured adage: A stitch in time saves nine.

Signed:

_____ ___________                                       _____________________

JAMES IBOR, ESQ.                                     E. U. UNOH, ESQ.

Executive Secretary                                              Legal Adviser, Expert Committee

____________________

NSE PAULINUS

Chief of Logistics, Expert Committee

On Monday April 16, 2011, the government of Akwa Ibom state, through its Ministry of Women Affairs and Social Welfare, started taking away children from a local shelter managed by a non governmental organisation, the Child Rights and Rehabilitation Network (CRARN) and its partners, to a supposed state-owned shelter.That brings to a head the long running tension between the state government, this local NGO, and other child rights activists in the state. The Akwa Ibom state government had accused CRARN and its local partners of exaggerating the problem of child witch hunting and using it to make money.

The campaign against witchcraft accusations and child rights abuses in Akwa Ibom has been mired in intricate politics. This article takes a critical look at how this disingenous power play by Akwa Ibom state government has undermined the efforts of governmental and non-governmental agencies to eradicate these horrific abuses.

For over a decade I have followed with keen interest the tragic wave of witch hunting in Akwa Ibom state. Until 2008, the government of Akwa Ibom did little or nothing to address this scourge. The former governor, Victor Attah, dismissed witchcraft as a form of superstition and did not take any effective measures to address witchcraft-related abuses. CRARN and its partners did the little they could to tackle the problem.

But the broadcast in 2008 of the documentary Saving Africa’s Witch Children on the UK’s Channel 4 shook the government of Godswill Akpabio out of its complacency. It shocked the state of Akwa Ibom into taking action against child witch hunting and related abuses .

The broadcast raised the political stakes on tackling child witch stigmatization in the state.

In its reaction to the broadcast, the government of Akwa Ibom hastily enacted the child rights law with sections that criminalized child witch hunting. The government arrested and started prosecuting all those shown in the documentary to be involved in child witch hunting in the state including a local bishop. Unfortunately up to that time, nobody had been convicted under the child rights law. Many children accused of witchcraft and then abandoned by families are still roaming the streets, sleeping in markets, churches and other public buildings across the state.

In fact many of thosed arrested and being investigated by the police in connection with witchcraft accusations and child rights abuses had been released. The government’s lacklustre approach to the problem was the focus of a CNN report in August 2010. The report deeply angered the government of Akwa Ibom. And in his reaction, the governor, Chief Godswill Akpabio, threatened to arrest and prosecute all child rights activists in the state who – he was told – were behind the CNN report.

Later, the governor inaugurated a commission to verify claims of witchcaft accusations and child rights abuses in the state and to make recommendations. The Commission of Inquiry, which had concluded its sitting, was widely percieved to be a tool by the government to discredit the work of NGOs and nail local activists. I testified before the commission and many people from Akwa Ibom appeared before the commission and presented shocking and incontrovertible evidence of witchcraft related abuses in the state. I was present when some state officials, particularly the Commissioners of Information and Women Affairs, appeared before the Commission. I was shocked by the spirited attempts by the state officials to play down the tragic situation, to cover the open sore of witchcraft accusation, misrepresent an obvious cultural scourge, and divert attention from the horrific abuses.

They refused to acknowledge the gaps and inadequacies in the way the state of Akwa Ibom had handled the matter. The state officials devoted their submissions to attacking and discrediting local NGOs and activists particularly CRARN, Stepping Stones Nigeria, Sam Ituama, Gary Foxcroft and of course my humble self. They never acknowledged the important contributions of these organisations and activists to the campaign against witch hunting in the state.

The Commissioner for Infomation denied the occurence of witchcraft accusations and child rights abuses in the state and attributed all reported cases to fabrications by local NGOs and activists who, he said, used them for fund raising purposes.

The state image-maker told the Commission that he was not aware of any instance of witchcraft accusation and abuse of the rights of a child in Akwa Ibom state.

In her statement before the Commission, the Commissioner for Women Affairs made it clear that her ministry was bent on taking over the children at the shelter managed by CRARN. She boasted that her ministry was in a better position to cater for the children than CRARN and its local partners.

Sadly this is not the case. And a visit to the Ministry of Women Affairs and the state run shelters in Uyo would convince anyone of the disingenous politics that informed her testimony before the Commission. A visit to the communities in Akwa Ibom will reveal the gaps and inadequacies in the government’s reponse to and handling of the problem. And instead of focusing on filling these gaps, the government of Akwa Ibom is busy ‘witch hunting’ NGOs and other child rights acitivists.

I have been to over 20 local governments in Akwa Ibom state. I have visited the Ministry of Woman Affairs and the state-owned shelters several times. In fact, some the the children I rescued are kept at the children’s homes located at IBB avenue and at Shelter Afrique in Uyo.

While Akwa Ibom, as the richest state in Nigeria, has the resources to cater for all the abused and abandoned children in the state, this does not reflect the situation at the Ministries and state-run shelters in the state. On several occasions, I went to hand over abandoned children to the Ministry of Women Affairs and the officials complained that they lacked facilities to accommodate them and that the ministry hadn’t enough trained personnel to cater for the children. Many officials at the Ministry are not trained social workers and care givers.

At the state owned children’s homes, many of the kids looked sick, unkempt, malnourished and emaciated. Some months ago I visited the children’s home at Shelter Afrique and was told that the management was on strike. Some of the children were sick and there was no medical officer to take care of them. Due to lack of proper care and management, some of the children I rescued and who were kept at these state-owned shelters had escaped without any trace of their whereabouts. The last time I visited the kids, they were crying. They said they would like to continue their education, and that they were locked up in the apartment from morning till night.

The children’s home at Shelter Afrique looked like a ‘detention center,’ not a care-giving home. Taking children away from the shelter managed by CRARN and its partners to state run orphanages like the one at Shelter Afrique is like taking these children from grace to grass. It is not in their best interest. The government of Akwa Ibom through the Ministry of Women Affairs is making it difficult for NGOs to provide care and shelter to abused and abandoned children in Akwa Ibom.

The government of Akwa Ibom state must admit that it cannot do it alone, and reach out to NGOs in the spirit of cooperation and partnership. The government must stop this politics that is undermining its efforts and making a mockery of its stated commitment to tackling the problem of witchcraft accusations and child rights abuses in the state. The governor should sack all the officials, advisers and political jobbers who have been misinforming and misleading him. He should appoint competent hands and minds who can help him to adequately address the menance.

The government of Akwa Ibom should begin to see NGOs and local activists as partners in progress, not antagonists, blackmailers, or rivals in the campaign against witchcraft-related abuses, in the provision and management of shelters for child victims and in the public education and enlightenment of the people. Instead of clamping down on the programs of NGOs and activists, the government should deploy its resources in rescuing and rehabilitating many abandoned children who are still roaming the streets in Akwa Ibom. The goverment should upgrade the facilities at the children’s homes, employ competent personnel, and provide an enabling environment for all NGOs and activists to operate.

Translation by Małgorzata Koraszewska and Sarah Lawson

On Friday, May 6, a towering figure of the left, Noam Chomsky, published his comments on the tragic death of Osama bin Laden in the magazine Guernica. There the learned linguist expresses great doubt whether bin Laden’s statement about his own responsibility for the attack on the World Trade Center can be taken seriously. According to Chomsky, Obama was lying when he said, after the operation in which an unarmed man was killed, that the United States quickly learned that the attacks on the  WTC were carried out by al Qaeda; after all, even “the head of the FBI, Robert Mueller, informed the press that after the most intensive investigation in history, the FBI could say no more than that it ‘believed’ that the plot was hatched in Afghanistan, though implemented in the UAE and Germany.”

In the same paragraph Chomsky reminds us that the Taliban offered to “extradite bin Laden if they were presented with evidence—which, as we soon learned, Washington didn’t have.” And does not have until today, whereas “bin Laden’s ‘confession,’ … is rather like my confession that I won the Boston Marathon”.

The rest of Chomsky’s arguments are easy to guess: travesty of justice, murder, “how we would be reacting if Iraqi commandos landed at George W. Bush’s compound, assassinated him, and dumped his body in the Atlantic,” etc.

On Tuesday, May 9, in Slate, Christopher Hitchens responded. Hitchens, who as a foreign correspondent knows the Middle East and has its number. It is no wonder that Chomsky’s deliberations reminded him of all those hundreds of times when he had heard that Americans or Jews themselves organized attacks on the WTC in order to get their hands on oil and satisfy their lust for harming Muslims. Certainly even in the West there is no shortage of similarly deranged people, and in a special place among them is a former British intelligence, agent David Shayler, who claims that no attacks took place at all, and to add to the wackiness announced his own divinity.

Hitchens reminds us that 10 years ago Chomsky did believe that Al-Qaeda organized the attack on the WTC but then he limited himself to minimizing the attack by claiming that the crimes of the West were much, much greater so there was nothing special about it.

Chomsky – Christopher Hitchens writes –still enjoys a good reputation among intellectuals. He claims incessantly that he is “turning to the facts.” However he does not show an elementary knowledge of facts presented in official investigations; it appears that he never read the transcripts of the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called “20th hijacker”, or followed the journalistic investigations of Lawrence Wright, Peter Bergen, or John Burns. 

With the paranoid anti-war “left,” you never quite know where the emphasis is going to fall next. […] And America is an incarnation of the Third Reich that doesn’t even conceal its genocidal methods and aspirations. This is the sum total of what has been learned, by the guru of the left, in the last decade – concludes Hitchens. 

It is astonishing sometimes to what a degree Chomsky and his ilk echo fanatical Muslim clerics. The same Friday when Chomsky published his article, in Al-Nour Mosque in Cairo people were praying for the death to America, for Paradise for bin Laden, and for death to Obama. Of course, just to round things up, they also chanted “Khaybar, Khaybar, oh Jews, the  army of Muhammad will return”. (A clip with those prayers can be watched here.)

In Al-Aqsa Mosque the preacher extolling Osama bin Laden announced that Bush and Obama soon will be hanging on the gallows.

Today, the dogs of the West are rejoicing at the killing of one of the lions of Islam. Today, the West rejoices at the killing of one of the lions of Islam. We say to them, from the Al-Aqsa Mosque, from the heart of the Caliphate, which, Allah willing, is soon to come: Dogs should not rejoice at the killing of lions. A country of dogs will always remain a country of dogs, while a lion remains a lion even after it is killed.

This concurrence of opinion was still more visible in an address by Dr. Salah Al-Din Sultan, a member of International Union of Muslim Scholars, headed by Sheik Yousef Al-Qaradhawi. In an article posted on the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood website, he explained that while the U.S. committed terror in the service of hegemony, oppression and tyranny, bin Laden raised the banner of jihad for the sake of Allah and he served a lofty goal, even if he did it in a misguided way.

Bin Laden’s terrorism raised the banner of jihad for the sake of Allah after the Islamic countries had renounced it as part of their resistance to Zionism in Palestine, to communism in Afghanistan, and to Hinduism in Kashmir. [True], bin Laden may have rushed in to things without first consulting the clerics and preachers of the ummah. He exercised independent discretion in matters of religious law and erred in some of his deeds. But the terrorism of the U.S. [is much worse because it] is essentially hegemony over money and power aimed at humiliating the regimes and peoples, at stealing the good of their [lands], plundering their resources, and producing tyrants in our Arab and Islamic world.

It is not known who is pilfering from whom: Noam Chomsky from Islamic scholars or Islamic scholars from Noam Chomsky? Of course, Chomsky cannot use the Koran in a similarly beautiful way, and his Marxism reaches only the most sophisticated. Dr Sultan wrote:

Bin Laden’s terrorism started out under the slogan, ‘Strike terror into the hearts of the enemies of Allah and your enemies [Koran 8:60],’ while the terrorism of the U.S. was and still is [waged] under the slogan, ‘I am your Lord, the Highest [Koran 79:24],’ and, ‘I will cut off your hands and feet on opposite sides, and I will have you crucified on trunks of palm-trees: so shall ye know for certain, which of us can give the more severe and the more lasting punishment [Koran 20:71].’ [i]

Allegedly, CNN conducted a 20-minute interview with a former British lawyer currently living on social benefits, the unemployed Muslim Sheik Anjem Choudary and his followers. (The mysterious “allegedly” comes from the fact that the interview can be seen only on Choudary’s website, not on CNN’s.)

This well-known British unemployed lawyer believes that bin Laden is the first of a whole new generation that will be remembered for centuries. Al-Qaeda, created by him, spread jihad all over the Muslim world.

I do believe that Sheikh Osama bin Laden is the revivalist of this century. Allah tells us that every 100 years he will send someone to revive the religion of Islam, so I think he revived the concept of worshiping Allah alone; the concept of there are two camps in the world – the camp of believers and the camp of disbelievers – and the idea, the concept of jihad – to liberate Muslim land, to defend life, honor, and property, and to spread Islam all over the world. That is something which I think was in our divine text, but he brought it to the fore, and people talk about it now in normal conversations. So he is a very significant figure. I don’t think that any Muslim can say that, truthfully, he did not have an impact in their lives.

The proletariat is no more to raise the banner of the revolution and to overthrow capitalism in the name of a shining future, so now this can be done by the differently-excluded. The function of the proletariat can be taken over by unemployed lawyers from London, because if not they, then who?

One of the disciples of the unemployed lawyer from London, asked how he got to hear about bin Laden, answered:

I was introduced to the name Osama bin Laden shortly after the 9/11 attacks. Before that I didn’t really know who he was. But when 9/11 did occur it forced me to inquire about who this person was, what his message was about, and I realized this man – he was someone who stands up for the truth.  

Noam Chomsky does not answer directly to questions of who Osama bin Laden was and still is for him. Only indirectly we can guess that for him bin Laden was a hero of the struggle against American capitalism, exploitation and imperialism—all that a true Marxist should struggle against.

He was also a herald of a better world, with sharia, four wives, subjugation of women, and a prospect of Paradise.

 Such is Chomsky and he will probably remain the same. But it will be interesting to see if the number of people impressed by this Shining Light of the intellectual left will now decline or increase. There are periods in history when the demand for sick opinions grows regardless of income and the level of education.