Author: Ophelia Benson

  • A stack of leaflets

    From the Telegraph:

    A stack of leaflets calling for the killing of a sect of Muslims have been found at south London mosque, it was reported today.

    The flyers, uncovered in Stockwell Green mosque, are said to have labelled Ahmadi Muslims apostates, claiming they deserved to die if they refuse to convert to mainstream Islam.

    They call for those who refuse to convert to mainstream Islam within three days to face a death penalty.

    Which random guys are apparently willing to carry out on a voluntary basis. A return ticket from Bradford to Glasgow and the job’s done.

    Ahmadis are known for their non-violence and interfaith concerns. But the sect is banned by the constitution of  Pakistan from referring to themselves as Muslims.

    Members have become targets of sectarian violence there and some fear that could spread to the UK, encouraged by organisations like Khatme Nabuwwat, which has previously been linked to the mosque.

    The BBC reported that the leaflets, written in English, were authored by Yusuf Ludhianvi and were found arranged in piles on a desk next to a shoe-rack, the usual place to display literature in mosques.

    Allah is merciful.

  • Makes the whole world blind

    The Beeb reports another manifestation of religious zeal:

    An Australian prisoner who supports the so-called Islamic State has allegedly used a knife to carve a slogan on to his cellmate’s head.

    Reports said the Islamic State mantra “e4e”, standing for “an eye for an eye”, was carved into the man’s head.

    An inquiry will examine how the high-risk attacker, 18, came to be housed with his 40-year-old cellmate.

    The guy with the carved-up head was a minimum security prisoner; the carver was maximum security.

    The 40-year-old man was admitted to Port Macquarie Base Hospital in a critical condition, but was now stable, a hospital spokesperson told the BBC.

    Police have charged Hraichie with causing grievous bodily harm with intent and intentionally choking a person.

    Allah is merciful.

     

  • Please be kind to each other

    Oh hey, I think I see where the “discussion” that led to the shunning of Surly Amy took place. I’d assumed it was on The Orbit, and there was no way I was going to look for it there, but it seems to have happened on The Orbit’s Facebook wall, where it’s a doddle to read posts by visitors.

    So unless there’s another parallel discussion on The Orbit, this is where the Aggrieved ordered the Orbit to shun Amy and The Orbit said okay.

    It’s a public post, by the way.

    Emily Titon‎ to The Orbit
    March 30 at 11:29pm ·

    I would love to support the Orbit, because some of my most favorite bloggers are on it. But I can’t, not in good conscience, because I have learned that also on The Orbit is someone who was not only ableist but doubled down on their ableism when called out on it – in a pretty spectacular fashion. I have included a link below for reference. Amy Roth hurt a lot of people, and dismissed disabled people, and seeing her and especially the very thing that was ableist in the first place, the thing she was first talked to about – being a part of what is supposed to be an awesome and amazing social justice place – as an award for supporting, no less, and without having ever seen a true apology from Amy, or any sort of a resolution or affirmation that what she did was harmful – it just doesn’t make The Orbit seem very good or very safe.

    There are many comments supporting this ludicrous claim.

    America Madeleine YamaguchiI am extremely concerned about this as wellm

    America did a followup post to say so.

    Chris Hall I’m really not sure what the problem is. Amy Davis Roth doesn’t have a blog on The Orbit.
    Uh oh uh oh – Chris Hall is in trouble now.

    Emily Titon Ah. My mistake then.

    But The Orbit shouldn’t be using her creations as rewards though, either, IMO; as you will see at the link, they are the same things that were at the center of things and were ableist. By using them as rewards, it seems to me that The Orbit either was unaware of this and now is and can choose to act or not, or they knew, but didn’t see it as a problem.

    It’s a problem when works by someone who is unrepentantly oppressive are being promoted on a social justice site, because that implies that they think or that she is concerned with social justice. Which, if she was, she would have sincerely apologized, and because her apology was sincere, she would not have used the same ableist things as rewards. Or The Orbit would not have used her creations as rewards because that is holding them and her out as good for social justice.

    That that shouldn’t happen unless and until she apologizes sincerely for her ableism and works to correct it going forward.

    America Madeleine Yamaguchi She is participating in the Kickstarter by providing several rewards.
    Kassiane Alexandra S. Anyone partnering in any way with someone so wantonly, knowingly, & unrelentingly bigoted is unsafe by association.
    Mox Sapphire The offer and distribution of those rewards promotes her reputation. The Orbit is signaling their support and approval of her.
    Alyssa Hillary The rewards from her on the Kickstarter indicates approval. This does not fly.
    Neeley Fluke Any official word from The Orbit yet?
    Kassiane Alexandra S. Approximately “tough shit but don’t say we don’t care about ableism”

    Emily Titon Thus proving you right so far.

    I am hoping they will do better. I know they can.

    Kassiane Alexandra S. I hate being so often right. I’d love to be proven wrong.
    Emily Titon I would love for that to happen too.
    The Orbit All,
    We have heard your concerns and your criticisms and we are currently deliberating on the best way to address them. As we are a collective, it will take some time to craft an appropriate response because all members of The Orbit get a say in situations like this. Please rest assured that we have heard your concerns and though the decision making process may appear slow, we are working to resolve this issue.
    Ronja Addams-Moring Update appreciated — best of luck with the discussions and please be kind to each other.
    Ahhh, isn’t that sweet? Please be kind to each other. Don’t be kind to Amy, because she is obviously Pure Evil, but do be kind to each other, because we are all on the same side here, the side of Pure Goodness. Except of course when we have to Call You Out, when you become temporarily Besmirched, much to our concern and dismay (and a wee touch of contempt), but that rights itself as soon as you do what we tell you to do.

    Ronja Addams-Moring Adding myself to the “official” head count of concerned people. Also: April 2nd is almost upon us, so if any of you have time, reposting articles and memes against Lighting It Up Blue would be very valuable. I’ll add a few links into replies.

    Added: I’m neurodivergent and cognitively disabled: ADHD + dyslexia + PTSD.Like · Reply · 2 · March 31 at 11:58pm · Edited

    Ronja Addams-Moring Come to think of it: if people are comfortable doing so (seeing as this is a public thread), please add to your comment if you are cognitively or developmentally disabled or if you are commenting because you want to ally. I have personally seen at least two dozen neurodivergent people (I am including what are usually called “mental illnesses” in the ND definition) commenting on this topic in various FB threads, and I think it is important to note and take into account that this is NOT a case of “allies-dominated overkill”.
    Oh god no. Obviously not.
    Marc Godin I don’t consider myself disabled (but do sometimes identify as neurodivergent for anxiety, depression, and addiction issues) and I’m adding my voice in support of reconsidering using surlyramics as a thank you for donating. I’m really concerned that she was considered at all, with my understanding that her history was known to the decision-makers. Others have listed the reasons why, and those who’ve been most hurt by her should be who we are listening to here.
    America Madeleine Yamaguchi I am neurodivergent. I also consider myself disabled. I am not able to get government benefits, nor do I need them while still under my parents’ roof, but I’m not sure what is going to happen once I lose my parents insurance next year. I definitely am limited in what I can do every day, so “ableism was made up by 4chan trolls” is not a welcome sentiment.
    Emily Titon It’s a disgusting and dangerous sentiment. Grrr.
    And that’s all it took.
  • “Listen to sex workers” – until they exit, then tell them to shut up

    Meghan Murphy on Australia’s first abolitionist conference, and the harassment that greeted it.

    A campaign headed up by Vixen, a pro-prostitution advocacy group in Australia, attempted to shut down Australia’s first abolitionist conference (which doubles as the Prostitution Narratives: Stories of Survival in the Sex Trade book launch), but failed.

    Over the past week, the #RMIT2016 hashtag was overrun by prostitution fans and anti-feminists who claimed that, somehow, hosting voices of survivors and feminists who opposed the sex industry equated to “silencing” and “hate.” Vixen encouraged supporters to harass RMIT University, via Twitter and email, into shutting down the conference, though University representatives refused to comment publicly (because, why?). Feminists were called “cunts” by online protesters and one young woman suggested RMIT University be burned to the ground, as though simply speaking out against a racist, exploitative, abusive industry like prostitution deserves arson in response.

    Because why? Do people think – like Amnesty International – that access to prostitutes is a human right? Do they think pimps are the defenders of human rights and abolitionists are the destroyers of human rights? Do they think access to female bodies is a human right?

    Murphy includes a lot of tweets from the conference. Here’s a zinger:

  • Another shunning

    Remember last summer when things got all sharp and spiky at Freethought blogs so I left there and came back here? After that everything calmed down at FTB and went back to collegial harmony and love.

    Hahaha no it didn’t. That’s why we saw the debut of The Orbit on March 15, a new blog formed from a bunch of former FTB ones and some new ones.

    It took only three weeks. Three weeks! Even I, who know their way with dissenters so intimately, thought it would take way longer than that. Only three weeks before the first schism: an update to their fundraiser on April 6:

    We Made a Mistake, and We Apologize

    When The Orbit launched, we offered a number of rewards on our (ongoing) Kickstarter, including Surly-Ramics jewelry. As readers may or may not know, there was controversy two years ago—involving, among others, Surly-Ramics creator Amy Davis Roth—regarding ableist language and responses to criticism. There remains significant disagreement among disability activists about these events: some accepted Amy’s apology and subsequent actions, while others are still dissatisfied with her reaction when criticized. (For details, see the linked post, written by one participant. https://teenskepchick.org/2014/02/17/what-actually-happened-and-a-rough-timeline/)

    Many Orbit bloggers, who have different relationships (or lack thereof) with Amy and Surly-Ramics, are ourselves disabled and engaged in disability advocacy to different extents. While some now feel comfortable promoting Amy’s work, others differ, and individual bloggers will continue drawing their own lines. As a network, however, we recognize offering Surly-Ramics was a mistake, both because no consensus existed on our network and because doing so without explanation cast doubt on disability rights’ importance to us. We apologize for that mistake.

    While preparing to launch our site, we did a lot of things in a hurry. This decision was made quickly, and we now realize we should have given ourselves more time to reach the fully informed consensus The Orbit aims to operate under. In the absence of this consensus, we are no longer offering the Surly-Ramics through our Kickstarter. Although we remain contractually bound to provide the jewelry to any donors who requested it, Surly-Ramics are now marked “sold out”. In their place, we’re offering poster prints by Orbit blogger and disability activist Ania Bula. (Any existing backers who would rather receive a print as a reward can change their pledge any time before the Kickstarter closes.)

    In addition, we’re now examining our decision-making process to stop situations like this from arising in the future and looking at ways to respond to criticism more quickly. While we can’t promise never to make another mistake, we aim to make as few as possible, especially where marginalized people are concerned. We hope anyone hurt by this one can accept our apology, though we recognize they retain the right not to.

    So that’s Surly Amy thrown under the bus, and then run over a few times for good luck. That’s Surly Amy’s jewelry thrown back in her face. That’s Surly Amy’s art rejected in favor of that of Ania Bula, which is not (to put it gently) as good. This despite the fact that several of the Orbit people have long been friends of Amy’s, in some cases fairly close friends.

    What a horrible set of people.

  • It was all up for grabs, and how they grabbed it

    First there’s the headline. You just have to laugh.

    John Colapinto Revives the Male-Centric Literary Sex Novel

    Say what? Revives it? Since when is it moribund?

    Then there’s the author: Steven Kurutz. So men think there aren’t enough male-centric sex novels around. Ok…

    Then there’s the article.

    There was a time when the great American male novelists took delight in writing about sex…Sex was freedom, sex was adventure, sex was a good time, sex was pain, sex was life. Masturbation, threesomes, pedophilia, extramarital flings, one-night romps: It was all up for grabs, and how they grabbed it.

    Good old “it.” No need to ask an it how it feels about any of this. Also, what is pedophilia doing in there? Is Steven Kurutz a Catholic bishop? Raping children is a crime. It’s not kink, it’s a crime.

    In these more tentative times, male literary novelists tend to shy away from such strong stuff. And when these creatures of the workshop do manage to summon up the courage to test their descriptive powers against the most basic of human drives and activities, it is often to chronicle male sexual hesitation, confusion or inadequacy.

    Still no mention of the non-male people who are often involved in all this “strong stuff.” Apparently they have no say, being its.

    John Colapinto wrote a novel with, apparently, a lot of sex in it. 41 publishers said no thank you. Kurutz tells us nothing about the quality of the novel, but assumes without argument (let alone demonstration) that the no thank yous were all because the novel is too sex for them.

    An editor at Grove Atlantic, writing to the author’s agent, called the manuscript “gripping,” only to add, “There were worries that it might be a bit challenging to publish.” An editor at Simon & Schuster said that although the novel was absorbing and perceptive, “It’s not a world or a story I want to live in and explore.” An editor at Gallery Books put it like this: “The subject matter is too tricky.”

    It’s far from obvious that the Simon & Schuster editor, for instance, didn’t simply dislike the novel, as opposed to shying away from all the sex.

    One of the protagonists of “Undone,” Dez, has a fetish for teenage girls. His latest catch, or victim, is a 17-year-old high school student named Chloe.

    Hello. If by “catch, or victim” he means sex partner, that’s statutory rape.

    But by exploring heterosexual male lust, Mr. Colapinto has written the kind of novel that has gone way out of fashion. The classics of the genre — “Portnoy’s Complaint” (Roth), “An American Dream” (Mailer) and “Couples” (Updike), among them — are many decades old.

    I grew up on Roth and Updike, and even then their misogyny and failure to grasp that women are fully people put me off. I don’t lament the decline (if it even is a decline) of that kind of writing. (Martin Amis, by the way, is one who still does a fine line in women-oblivious writing.)

    Publishers of literary fiction, perhaps afraid to alienate their biggest customers — women, who read more than men — aren’t exactly rushing to release the next male-written sexually provocative novel.

    He got so close to the obvious, yet he never noticed. Why would that kind of writing alienate women? It’s not the sex part, it’s the male-centric part. We get enough of that in the world, we don’t need even more of it in novels.

    Many critics and civilian readers would say — and have said — good riddance to priapic literature. In a 1997 essay, ostensibly a review of the late-period Updike novel “Toward the End of Time,” David Foster Wallace slammed the previous generation of “phallocrats” for its sex-obsessed narcissism. He mocked the protagonist of the Updike book for giving voice to such pronouncements as “I want women to be dirty” and expressed disgust for the author’s description of a 13-year-old girl’s breasts (“shallow taut cones tipped with honeysuckle-berry nipples”).

    What had once been an act of literary daring had grown stale, Wallace argued, and Updike was misguided in clinging to the “bizarre adolescent idea that getting to have sex with whomever one wants is a cure for ontological despair.”

    Well quite. Yet Kurutz, even after quoting that, still doesn’t seem to get it.

    Mr. Colapinto, who has a wife and a teenage son, travels in educated, liberal circles that have internalized several waves of feminism. His son has not read the entirety of “Undone,” he said, and his wife, who only recently did, “had her concerns.” (“I’m insane,” Mr. Colapinto added, laughing.) But he set out to write a “dangerous” novel, he said, in the belief that “inappropriate lust” made for a worthwhile topic.

    He even mentions feminism, and still doesn’t get it.

    Male-centric journalism is still flourishing, I promise you.

  • An affiliate of the Muslim Council of Britain

    Libby Brooks in the Guardian on Tanveer Ahmed and life for Ahmadis in the UK and elsewhere.

    She begins with a slice of life:

    Some of Samia Sultan’s neighbours don’t greet her any more, and sometimes it’s hard for her to understand why. Sultan, a dentist, lives in Glasgow, in an area of the city that is – like most Muslim populations in the UK – majority Sunni. But Sultan isn’t Sunni: she is Ahmadi. And that is the source of the problem.

    “My neighbours were fine, but when they came to know I was Ahmadi, their attitude changed,” Sultan explains. It is a bright morning in Glasgow, but the boredom of the school holidays is beginning to bite, and her daughters are impatient to borrow her smartphone so that they can use its stopwatch to time their game. Sultan passes her palm gently over her older daughter’s hair as she sends her back out to play. “They would no longer reply to my greeting As-salāmu ‘alaykum [peace be upon you]” with Wa’alaykumu s-salām [and upon you peace].”

    At first hearing, it seems almost negligible; a petty withholding.

    No, it doesn’t, actually. On the contrary. It seems like the harshest non-physical stab humans can give each other: rejection. Refusal of a kind greeting is not at all negligible, it’s brutal.

    This is one way religion is so dreadfully bad for people. Politics can be bad for us in the same way, but religion is also arbitrary, which makes it all even worse. Brutally shunning people over complete nonsense about whether Mo was the last prophet or not, not to mention murdering them, is a refinement of hatefulness that’s special to religion.

    But this doorstep refusal to return the universal Muslim greeting is blunt in its intended humiliation: a denial of the basic vocabulary of belonging. Sultan shrugs lightly. “We can’t stop it by ourselves and we are taught to bear hardship with patience, so we try to be friendly.” She pauses. “But it is hard. Sometimes you think: what is wrong with me?”

    Of course you do, and that’s why it’s so cruel.

    (Mind you, as a non-Muslim and an atheist I wonder how the greeting works – if Sultan knows which neighbors are Muslims and which aren’t, or if she relies on appearance, or if her neighborhood is so ghettoized that everyone is Muslim, or what, and I also wonder how she greets non-Muslims if there are any. In short I’m not very keen on a specifically religious greeting that doesn’t work for outsiders, because it’s just more of the same Us and Them that motivated Tanveer Ahmed to murder Asad Shah. But that’s separate from the meanness of Sultan’s neighbors.)

    The man now charged with Shah’s murder is also a Muslim. On Thursday, Tanveer Ahmed, from Bradford, released a statement through his lawyer, justifying the killing because Shah had “disrespected” Islam.

    Insisting that the killing had “nothing at all to do with Christianity or any other religious beliefs”, he went on to warn: “If I had not done this, others would and there would have been more killing and violence in the world.”

    Why would there have been more violence if someone else had done it? Did he do it in an especially peaceful way? I don’t think so.

    Glasgow’s Ahmadi have called on all Muslim leaders and imams in Britain to publicly condemn this statement. Describing Ahmed’s words as “deeply disturbing”, community leader Ahmed Owusu-Konadu said: “It justifies the killing of anyone – Muslim or non-Muslim – whom an extremist considers to have shown disrespect to Islam.”

    Indeed it does. See Charlie Hebdo, see Kurt Westergaard, see the long list of murdered atheists in Bangladesh, see the more than two decades of threats against Taslima, see the fatwa on Salman.

    Speaking from his office in Islamabad, Ali Dayan Hasan, the former Pakistan director of Human Rights Watch, is succinct about general attitudes to Ahmadis: “It is shocking how much hate there is in the UK.” He refers in particular to literature distributed by Khatme Nubuwatt, an organisation that in Pakistan calls for the ‘elimination’ of the Ahmadi, but also has branches in the UK, where it is a registered charity and an affiliate of the Muslim Council of Britain. A posting on the Facebook page Anti Qadianiat (Tahafuz Khatme Nubuwwat), included the Guardian’s report of Shah’s death, with the message “Congratulations to all Muslims”.

    Emphasis added. That loathsome murder-inciting group is an affiliate of the MCB – the umbrella organization that the BBC used to treat as representing non-theocratic Muslims.

    Police Scotland are investigating alleged links between a prominent Glasgow Muslim leader and a banned sectarian group in Pakistan. A recent BBC investigation revealed that Sabir Ali, the head of religious events at Glasgow Central mosque, was president of Sipah-e-Sahaba, a militant political party that has accepted responsibility for deadly sectarian attacks against Shia Muslims and Ahmadiyya minorities in Pakistan, and was banned by the Home Office in 2001.

    Aamer Anwar, one of Scotland’s most outspoken Muslim reformers, last week helped to broker a unique event where representatives of Sunni, Shia, Ahmadiyya and Pakistani Christian communities shared a platform for the first time, and vowed to stand shoulder-to-shoulder against extremism.

    At the time, Anwar warned: “A very small minority of the community may think it’s OK to meddle in the cesspit of violent extremist politics in Pakistan, but we are united in saying that we do not want to import sectarian violence that has caused so much division and so much bloodshed to our community or to our streets.” He has since received death threats himself, which are now under investigation by the police.

    Of course he has.

  • Ordered to cover their hair

    French flight attendants are saying no to Air France’s order to wear Air France hijab in Iran.

    Air France stewardesses, furious at being ordered to wear headscarves in Tehran, say they will refuse to fly to the Iranian capital when the airline resumes the service later this month.

    Female members of flight crews have been ordered to cover their hair once they disembark in Tehran and unions are demanding that the flights be made voluntary for women.

    …

    French women see Islamic headscarves and veils as an affront to their dignity. Headscarves are banned in French state schools and offices, and it is illegal to wear the full-face Muslim veil in public.

    You know…that’s not just some funny quirk of French women. Hijab is an affront to the dignity of all women. It treats women as a special case, and men as the only Real Humans and the ones who get to tell women what to wear. It treats women as subordinate and men as dominant. It treats women as dirty, a contaminant, a thing that has to be wrapped up and concealed. It treats women as an inferior class of people who can’t even consult their own comfort and freedom of movement when they decide what clothes to wear.

    The financially ailing French airline, which sees the resumption of Tehran flights as an “excellent” business development, pointed out that other airline staff were obliged to comply with Iranian rules. “Tolerance and respect for the customs of the countries we serve are part of the values of our company,” a spokesman said.

    Fuck that, and fuck them. What if the customs of the countries they serve required Jews to wear yellow stars? What if the customs of the countries they serve required people from Africa to wear some special garment or mark? What if the customs of the countries they serve required dalits from India to wear badges of Untouchability? Would they “respect” those customs?

    Also, tolerating and respecting other people’s customs in the sense of not interfering with them is one thing, and doing so in the sense of following the customs yourself is quite another. I don’t expect Air France to go to Iran and campaign against the law requiring women to wear hijab, but that doesn’t mean they have to order their employees who have the bad taste to be women to wear it.

  • He disrespected the messenger

    Tanveer Ahmed, the Bradford man accused of murdering Asad Shah, issued a statement on Wednesday explaining why he did it. The statement is exactly as disgusting as you would expect.

    Ahmed made no plea when he appeared at Glasgow Sheriff Court on Wednesday for a full committal hearing in private but after the hearing he released a statement through his lawyer, John Rafferty.

    The statement said: “This all happened for one reason and no other issues and no other intentions.

    “Asad Shah disrespected the messenger of Islam the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him. Mr Shah claimed to be a Prophet.

    “When 1,400 years ago the Prophet of Islam Muhammad peace be upon him has clearly said that ‘I am the final messenger of Allah there is no more prophets or messengers from God Allah after me.

    ”’I am leaving you the final Quran. There is no changes. It is the final book of Allah and this is the final completion of Islam.

    “‘There is no more changes to it and no one has the right to claim to be a Prophet or to change the Quran or change Islam.’

    “It is mentioned in the Quran that there is no doubt in this book no one has the right to disrespect the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him and no one has the right to disrespect the Prophet of Islam Muhammad Peace be upon him.

    “If I had not done this others would and there would have been more killing and violence in the world.

    “I wish to make it clear that the incident was nothing at all to do with Christianity or any other religious beliefs even although I am a follower of the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him I also love and respect Jesus Christ.”

    What a terrible, hideous, mindless, cruel religion Tanveer Ahmed believes in – one that wants human beings to murder other human beings over nonsense about who is or is not the last “prophet.” A god that was any good wouldn’t want that at all, and would have the decency to tell humans so in unmistakable terms.

    Mr Rafferty said: “My client Mr Tanveer Ahmed has specifically instructed me that today, April 6 2016, to issue this statement to the press, the statement is in the words of my client.”

    His statement certainly underlines what a terrible religion he and those like him submit to.

  • What’s everyone on about?

    This is so sad – a woman in Australia refused a whooping cough vaccination when she was 28 weeks pregnant – and got whooping cough and passed it to her infant.

    After giving birth, Ms Avital who had been coughing for a couple of days was told she had whooping cough which she had passed on to Eva.

    She said the first few days Eva only had a slight cough and thought “what’s everyone on about?” but within two weeks Eva’s cough became “pretty scary”, similar to “horror movie coughing”.

    “[She was] coughing to the point of going blue, flopping in my hands, couldn’t breathe, rushing [her] to hospital,” Ms Avital said.

    Eva had to be taken to the hospital several times, once after suffering apnoea which caused her to stop breathing for three minutes.

    Pertussis is like that for infants. We saw some videos of whooping infants a few years ago, and it was horrific. They keep coughing out until they have no breath left, and they can’t take any in.

    A Queensland Health spokeswoman said the message behind Ms Avital’s video was incredibly important and the amount of attention it had received online was pleasing.

    “Whooping cough is a terrible disease, especially for children,” she said.

    “Women can get a booster vaccine in their third trimester which offers protection for babies.”

    From 2014-2015, cases of whooping cough surged to 6,670 after 3,988 presentations the previous year, according to the Commonwealth’s Report on Government Services released in February.

    Pertussis can kill.

     

  • Witchcraft Revolution? Witch finding Journalism in Africa

    If the outcome of the recent investigative journalism project on the topic of witchcraft in Africa is anything to go by, then there is an urgent need to investigate ‘investigative journalism’ in the region. This is because the findings of this team are laughable in one sense and disturbing in another. They are laughable because they have reaffirmed the same old contradictory superstitious fantasies that have made Africans a laughing stock in the global intellectual market. They are disturbing because they are presented as products of investigative journalism! The resolution and manifesto issued at the end of the meeting in Accra are just uncritical rendering of commonplace witchcraft beliefs (I guess of the journalists), not a reflection of the region’s diverse critical mix of beliefs, ideas and notions.

    First of all let us take a look at the event that led to the constitution of this ‘investigative team’. Two journalists, one from Benin in West Africa and the other from the Netherlands differed on reporting a story on witchcraft because the West African believed witches existed and the Dutch counterpart did not. As the report says, “While the Benin journalists worked to prove that witches exist, the Dutch journalist was tasked to prove that witches didn’t”. For me this is a clear indication that the investigative project was agenda driven or perhaps I should say the investigation was dead on arrival.

    However the encounter led to the formation of a team of journalists from Benin, Nigeria and Cameroon. The team was tasked to conduct a research with the following guiding questions: “Does everybody believe in the power of witches? Does it mean that everybody can become the victim of witches? Does it mean that anybody can be or become a witch or wizard?”

    The reporter from Nigeria’s Daily Trust was part of this investigative team and covered the Nigerian leg of the investigation. Now let us look at their findings.

    First of all, they found out that “Witchcraft is an invisible mafia-like system, practiced by faceless people and is practically impossible to prove”. I could not make sense of this, could you? They said that “Witchcraft not only kills people, it can kill countries as well. Witchcraft seriously retards the development of a country on all levels, democracy, economy, health, education, community life, relations. It can even kill a country.”

    Now if witchcraft were impossible to prove, how did they know that it killed people, and that it could kill a country? How is ‘witchcraft’ a mafia like operation? This “investigative team” further stated as part of their findings that the witchcraft system “is egotistic, with no eyes for the common good. Witchcraft is built on fear and jealousy and nobody can escape it, neither the victims nor the people practicing it. Through witchcraft, people are threatened and manipulated; members cited many examples of blackmail, corruption, tribalism, nepotism, forgery, fraud, maltreatment, and abuse; all in the name of witchcraft. Witchcraft is responsible for many peoples’ deaths; it’s impossible to say how many”. I mean let’s think about this. How is witchcraft egoistic? Has a witch an ego? How is witchcraft responsible for deaths? Which deaths? Do they mean witchcraft or belief in witchcraft?

    Anyway, the team further stated that “through witchcraft, elections could be manipulated. Several cases of politicians who used witchcraft, or became the victims of witchcraft were cited”. It would have been very interesting to know which politicians in Nigeria, Benin or Cameroon used witchcraft to manipulate the election. This team should have come out with findings based on facts and substance not hearsay. The team made reference to the abuse which African children suffer due to witchcraft beliefs. However, they could have investigated whether the claims of their users and abusers were valid, that is if the children actually did what they were accused of. Yes, the team could have extended their investigation to finding out about the veracity of witchcraft claims. I guess the journalists could not do this because the project was meant to prove a point: that witches existed. So sad!

    Little wonder then as part of their so called ‘Witchcraft Revolution’ manifesto, they refrained from calling for the eradication of witchcraft beliefs. Instead they asked that witchcraft be used “for the good and not for the bad”. Really? How can people use something which they said was impossible to prove for good? In fact they planned starting a campaign to ask “local and national governments, associations of local chiefs and churches to take action”.

    I hope the campaign that people should use witchcraft for good and not for evil never sees the light of the day in West Africa and in the entire region.

    For me this project was a wasted time, effort and opportunity because there was literally nothing new in their findings – still the same old story, the same old narrative and prejudice recycled. In fact it was a misnomer to have called what these journalists did an investigative project. No. This is a witch hunting project. This is witch finding journalism at work. This project raises much doubt about the worth, substance and credibility of investigative journalism in Africa. It reinforces the stereotype that Africans are mentally wired to think magically and mystically, that Africans are intellectually stuck in the early modern European phase of human development and that the witch doubting, disbelieving and questioning mind is white, European and western. Unfortunately, this is what this ‘witchcraft revolution’ has achieved.

    Thus we need to rethink the project of investigative journalism in Africa because what these journalists have done is definitely not the critical, fact-finding, unbiased, hard hitting, objective inquiry which the topic of witchcraft in Africa urgently needs.

  • It’s not a game

    And then there’s Dilly Hussain. His latest caper is to pin a target on Sunny Hundal:

    Dilly Hussain is currently busy on Twitter mocking the idea that he tried to incite violence against Sunny, but that’s extremely disingenuous given what he said:

    Dilly Hussain‏@DillyHussain88
    .@sunny_hundal mocks the Prophet of Islam (saw) on the status of animals,,and uses his hidden Islamophobia to come across as a fair liberal.

    We know what the sentence is supposed to be for people who “mock the Prophet of Islam (saw)” – it’s death. We know there are people who carry out those death sentences. Dilly Hussain knows that too.

  • Not all that diversified

    The CEMB has more on Media Diversified, from December 2013.

    Lejla Kuric is a Bosnian Muslim who lives in Manchester, England.

    She believes in secularism, feminism and the principles enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As such, she disagrees with those who seek to restrict Women’s Rights in the name of religion, and is very active in opposing cultural relativists and Islamists.

    We disagree with Lejla Kuric on many issues. She is a believing Muslim. We are apostates. Despite this, Lejla has openly supported our right to leave and be critical of Islam, and has done that despite facing criticism and abuse from some Muslims for doing so. We consider her to be a brave and principled person.

    Same here. I’m friends with her on Facebook and I think she’s terrific.

    Lejla is also a survivor of the anti-Muslim genocide in Bosnia. Which makes it all the more remarkable and perverse that following the publication of an article by a Hizb ut Tahrir representative by the website Writers of Colour, she was described by the twitter account of that site in the following terms:

    “I have blocked that woman as she is an Islamophobe who abuses Muslims on the internet”

    People in comments point out that Writers of Colour=Media Diversified.

    Lejla earned the wrath of this website by pointing out that Hizb ut Tahrir are a group who say that gays and apostates deserve to be killed, who are classified as a fascist Hate Group by the anti-Nazi activists Hope Not Hate, and for saying that they should be confronted about their extremist, racist, misogynistic and murderous hate.

    We take for granted that liberal Muslims and Exmuslims who oppose Islamist extremism are betrayed by some cultural relativist liberals. This is pretty par for the course. But describing a Muslim survivor of the anti-Muslim genocide in Bosnia in these terms simply because she points out how Hizb ut Tahrir are a fascist, murderous, extremist group is striking for being a low point in a large field of low points.

    It is, isn’t it.

    We stand with Lejla Kuric, a brave, principled and brilliant defender of Universal Human Rights and secularism against all forms of extremism, and we lament the ethical failure of some liberal, left wing cultural relativists.

    Attached image is missing

    No low too low.

  • Why I define myself as a feminist – rather than an ally

    In a lot of liberal parlance there is this idea of being an “ally” which I find just a wee bit less than satisfactory.

    The thing about an ally is that they’re not there because they actually believe in your cause, but because they feel they can benefit in some way.

    Hence for example during WWII the US and the USSR were allies – even though for most of the rest of the century they were on the brink of ending the world over each other’s continued existence.

    Allies are not friends; they’re people who seek mutual benefit in order to achieve strategic goals. That is an important distinction when we talk about social justice.

    When we say we’re being good allies, what we’re actually saying is that we’re going to paint ourselves as being in favour of a cause basically for some sort of benefit to ourselves.

    To be an ally to feminism is that to not so much embrace the idea that women are equal to men and should be afforded to the same rights and general treatment as men, but to say that the movement that says that is in some way useful to me.

    And allies come with demands. A lot of digital ink has been spilled in the atheist community over being good allies to various other communities, but this comes with an inherent idea that those communities would owe us in some way for basically being minimally decent human beings.

    And I cannot do that. I cannot say that racism is wrong because that aligns me with a movement that will pay me back some day for saying that, I say it is wrong because it is wrong.

    And as an anti-racist, I will accept the leadership of those impacted hardest by racism in the battle against it, because I recognise that they are the ones who know best what they’re talking about.

    I do not do this uncritically, anymore than I would do so with any other sort of expert, but rather with an understanding that I have inferior knowledge.

    The same thing goes with feminism. I do not define myself as a feminist ally because I do not believe that those fighting for gender equality are potential useful assets to my other causes, I believe that they’re right hence I call myself a feminist.

    I am happy to accept the leadership of women in that fight, because they know much better than I do what they’re talking about.

    And that is an important point here. Men like me can end up overpowering voices that actually are much better suited to the argument, voices whose authority is layered with lived experience and data that I easily miss because my frame is fundamentally informed by the accident of birth that rendered me male in a male dominated world.

    So I have to learn to shut up and listen, something which is not exactly in my nature in most cases. The ability to recognise my own incompetence is a difficult one to master, and I have not fully done so yet.

    But I have no better label for my beliefs than to say I am a feminist, not as a mark of pride, not as a member of a movement I seek to dominate, but as a statement of what I believe to be true.

    I cannot call myself an ally, because that is not what I am. This isn’t some sort of transaction to gain myself some sort of benefit.

    And simply believing feminism to be correct – is no guarantee of personal perfection. Too often people like me like to say we want to hear a variety of voices – but all singing from our own song sheet.

    Saying that I am a feminist is not saying that I should not be criticised for my sexism, but that I should listen when such criticisms are made. I’m a slow study, but I have the duty to learn.

  • Name-calling

    It’s about time. Channel 4 has rebuked Assed Baig for calling liberal Muslims names like “house Muslim” and “sell-out.” He’s bullied several friends of mine that way.

    A Channel 4 reporter has been reprimanded by the broadcaster after claiming British Muslims are ‘sell-outs and Uncle Toms’ if they attend government-organised Islamic events.

    Investigative journalist Assed Baig, 34, who was born in Birmingham but now lives in London, has also used the pejorative term ‘house Muslim’ on Twitter in relation to moderate Muslims.

    And the former BBC reporter referred to any Muslims who attend British government iftars as ‘Uncle Toms’, which is a derogatory term meaning a black person showing obedience to whites.

    …

    Mr Baig, whose tweets were reported by the Guido Fawkes political blog, was criticised by some on Twitter today, but backed by others who said ‘keep up the good work’ and praised his ‘excellent reporting’.

    But Fiyaz Mugha, founder of Tell Mama, a Government-backed group which tracks anti-Muslim crimes, told MailOnline: ‘The term “house Muslim” effectively is synonymous with someone using house and using the N-word.

    ‘It means that people are subservient to a white master or a power structure. We think it actually has some racial connotations to it and also in many instances is used to provide a “them and us”.’

    Mr Baig doesn’t approve of liberal Muslims.

  • A sense of suddenly being a first-class citizen

    Arwa Mahdawi reports on a festive annual event:

    Every year at the end of March, 20,000 lesbians from around the world fly into the Californian desert for five days of debauchery, and I’m one of them. It’s my second time at the Dinah, also known as the largest girl festival in the world. I’m staying at the Hilton in Palm Springs, which is hosting the famous Dinah pool parties, and the hotel feels like a homosexual harem.

    It’s a surreal experience: for a few days the world is turned upside down, the minority is suddenly the majority. Everywhere you look, lesbians are smiling, drinking, dancing, kissing. There are a few men around – staff working the event and guys who have been dragged along by lesbian friends – but they are hard to spot. It’s basically entirely queer women in attendance.

    It’s named after a Dinah Shore golf tournament. This is its 26th year.

    Today, nobody is here for the golf. No one is here for the DJs, comedians or YouTube stars performing either. They’re here for the girls. Butch, femme, old, young, gold stars, bi, black, white, hardcore, normcore – the Dinah attracts a diverse group. There’s a sense of liberation and a tacit understanding that what happens in Dinah stays in Dinah (unless it ends up on Facebook).

    Lots of hooking up, lots of drinking.

    The feeling of permissiveness is compounded by the desert scenery: it looks like there has been some sort of gaypocalypse, and all the straight men and women have died out.

    I can’t lie, it’s nice being in a predominantly female space for a few days. There’s a feeling of comfortable camaraderie; a sense of suddenly being a first-class citizen. But I feel like that comes more from the queerness rather than the femaleness. No one at the Dinah wishes a plague on all men. Despite the stereotype of the man-hating dyke, most lesbians really like men (we need them around to ensure we don’t get too distracted). The Dinah isn’t about separatism; it’s about celebration.

    A funny thing about this article – there’s not a single mention of trans-exclusionary radical feminists, or of the cotton ceiling, or of trans women. Did Mahdawi not get the memo? I thought everybody always got the memo.

    While a lot of big brands have only started wooing dyke dollars recently, the city of Palm Springs has long been cognizant of the economic benefits of embracing diversity. It grew to prominence in the 1930s when closeted Hollywood movie stars would head to the desert to escape the studios’ scrutiny. The likes of Rock Hudson, Liberace, Greta Garbo, Joan Crawford and Marlene Dietrich all spent time there.

    Today it’s estimated that almost half the population of Palm Springs are gay, and it has the highest per capita gay population in the US, if not the world. It’s also seeing a surge of interest among straight Hollywood. Leonardo DiCaprio recently bought a vacation home there: the Dinah Shore Palm Springs Estate.

    Rob Moon, the openly gay mayor of Palm Springs, told me that “now more than ever, the city is experiencing a tremendous renaissance and Dinah Shore Weekend has been a huge economic driver. We owe a debt of gratitude to the LGBT community for helping Palm Springs evolve into the ultra-cool, stylish and sophisticated city it is today.”

    As for the future of lesbian-centric events, there has been a trend of lesbian bars closing recently. This has been partly been blamed on apps like Tinder, which make meeting other gay people less reliant on gay bars. It’s also been put down to more liberal attitudes; there’s no longer a need for gay space if all space is more inclusive.

    Will the next generation of gay women feel the same need for an extended women’s party? Mariah Hanson, founder of the Dinah, certainly seems to think so. “There’ll always be need for gay people to come together and congregate,” she said. “Our culture is unique … we’re not part of straight culture. The Dinah is and always has been five days of incredibly magical celebration of our lives. If the UN would pay attention to what’s going on at the Dinah it could change the world in a big way. People put aside their differences and go home feeling changed.”

    Should I get pissed off about being excluded by that “we’re not part of straight culture” line? Should I call these women SERLs? Or should I just think it sounds festive and move on? Hmm, hmm, so hard to decide.

    I’m kidding. It’s easy to decide. Mind you, I don’t like deserts or crowds or public swimming pools or drinking a lot, so that helps make the decision easier, but even if it didn’t…I would still find it easy to say it sounds festive and move on.

  • Guest post: Not just the COI, but the appearance of COI

    Originally a comment by Samantha Vimes on 153 million.

    I’m studying accounting ethics this semester.

    Every time the possibility of conflict of interest comes up in the accounting code, it states that a person must avoid not only a conflict, but the appearance of conflict. For example, an accountant shouldn’t take a job auditing a company if they have a relative who works for the company, if they’ve gotten gifts from the company, if they have a significant investment in the company, or if they provide other services for the company– anything that might make them biased. Even if the accountant is as honest as can be: part of the responsibility of an accountant is to maintain the reputation of their profession, which can’t be done if people suspect you had reason to forget your duty to the public.

    The same is true for politicians and judges— the public is losing faith in the system because the people with power think nothing of being in bed with special interests. And we really don’t care whether the politician is a true believer in corporatism or whether they’ve been bought. Either way, the politician is pursuing the interests of themselves and their friends and allies, and not thinking about justice or compassion or democracy.

  • An inherently exploitative dimension

    The Guardian has a surprise:

    This week, the French national assembly finally ended two years of wrangling and became the fifth European legislature to introduce a ban on buying sex. It is following the example set by Sweden in the late 1990s, and then by Norway and Iceland. In the UK, the Northern Ireland assembly banned it in June last year.

    Many sex workers, admittedly, don’t want their clients criminalised. In France, backed by a commission of the senate, they vehemently protested that it would make their work more, rather than less, dangerous: it would reduce the number of punters, they say, and leave them facing greater competition, the more vulnerable because they would have less choice.

    But reducing the number of punters is the goal, in order to reduce the number of women forced into and/or trapped in prostitution. The goal is not a large and growing market for access to women’s genitals.

    If criminalisation drives prostitution back into the shadows, and leaves workers more exposed to harm than they were, then there might indeed be an argument to find a different battleground for the moral fight, and concentrate instead on minimising the harm suffered by the women who, for whatever reason, are offering sex for money.

    The great difficulty, however, is that it leaves the sex industry intact. And in all paid-for sex there is, arguably, an inherently exploitative dimension. Even if there is nominally consent, in most cases, if not all, this will be a choice that women make out of desperation, rather than anything positive. The social and economic circumstances in which a woman sees sex work as the best available option represents, in itself, an environment of coercion. Criminalising not the women involved but their clients – particularly when, as in the French proposal, it is accompanied by a properly funded programme to help sex workers into more secure jobs – may be the least-bad answer, in both moral and practical terms.

    Unless you look at the very few women who actively enjoy sex work and are delighted to be able to make a good living at it, and conclude that they represent a significant enough percentage of sex workers to base policy on them and not on the women who are coerced or trapped or both. But who would be that naïve?

  • Does money make any difference?

    Naomi Klein also wrote about Clinton and corporate bribes, in the Nation the other day. I don’t read Naomi Klein much, because I think she tends to be simplistic, but she said some good things there.

    The very suggestion that taking this money could impact Clinton’s actions is “baseless and should stop,” according to California Senator Barbara Boxer. It’s “flat-out false,” “inappropriate,” and doesn’t “hold water,” declared New York Mayor Bill de Blasio. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman went so far as to issue “guidelines for good and bad behavior” for the Sanders camp. The first guideline? Cut out the “innuendo suggesting, without evidence, that Clinton is corrupt.”

    That’s one of the many harmful side-effects of the way US politics is flat-out based on bribery, dishonestly called “campaign financing” – it motivates people who should know better to bullshit in that way. Why otherwise would Paul Krugman pretend that bribes can’t possibly influence the recipients?

    Did the donations to the Clinton Foundation have anything to do with the State Department’s pipeline decision? Did they make Hillary Clinton more disposed to seeing tar-sands pipelines as environmentally benign, as early State Department reviews of Keystone XL seemed to conclude, despite the many scientific warnings? There is no proof—no “smoking gun,” as Clinton defenders like to say. Just as there is no proof that the money her campaign took from gas lobbyists and fracking financiers has shaped Clinton’s current (and dangerous) view that fracking can be made safe.

    It’s important to recognize that Clinton’s campaign platform includes some very good climate policies that surely do not please these donors—which is why the fossil-fuel sector gives so much more to climate change–denying Republicans.

    Still, the whole funding mess stinks, and it seems to get worse by the day. So it’s very good that the Sanders camp isn’t abiding by Krugman’s “guidelines for good behavior” and shutting up about the money in a year when climate change has contributed to the hottest temperatures since records began.

    It’s just not reasonable to tell anyone to shut up about the money.

    While Clinton is great at warring with Republicans, taking on powerful corporations goes against her entire worldview, against everything she’s built, and everything she stands for. The real issue, in other words, isn’t Clinton’s corporate cash, it’s her deeply pro-corporate ideology: one that makes taking money from lobbyists and accepting exorbitant speech fees from banks seem so natural that the candidate is openly struggling to see why any of this has blown up at all.

    That I think nails it on the head – although of course it’s also possible that she’s not genuinely struggling at all but knows perfectly well why it’s blown up, and is just dissembling, because she has to, because she’s already accepted the money.

    To understand this worldview, one need look no further than the foundation at which Hillary Clinton works and which bears her family name. The mission of the Clinton Foundation can be distilled as follows: There is so much private wealth sloshing around our planet (thanks in very large part to the deregulation and privatization frenzy that Bill Clinton unleashed on the world while president), that every single problem on earth, no matter how large, can be solved by convincing the ultra-rich to do the right things with their loose change. Naturally, the people to convince them to do these fine things are the Clintons, the ultimate relationship brokers and dealmakers, with the help of an entourage of A-list celebrities.

    Sadly I think that’s about right too.

    So let’s forget the smoking guns for the moment. The problem with Clinton World is structural. It’s the way in which these profoundly enmeshed relationships—lubricated by the exchange of money, favors, status, and media attention—shape what gets proposed as policy in the first place.

    For instance, under the Clintons’ guidance, drug companies work with the foundation to knock down their prices in Africa (conveniently avoiding the real solution: changing the system of patenting that allows them to charge such grotesque prices to the poor in the first place). The Dow Chemical Company finances water projects in India (just don’t mention their connection to the ongoing human health disaster in Bhopal, for which the company still refuses to take responsibility). And it was at the Clinton Global Initiative that airline mogul Richard Branson made his flashy pledge to spend billions solving climate change (almost a decade later, we’re still waiting, while Virgin Airlines keeps expanding).

    In Clinton World it’s always win-win-win: The governments look effective, the corporations look righteous, and the celebrities look serious. Oh, and another win too: The Clintons grow ever more powerful.

    And richer. $153 million.

  • 153 million

    I heard someone say on NPR the other day that the two Clintons have collected $150 million in speaking fees since he left office. My jaw dropped. I knew they’d both been pocketing huge fees, of course, but I didn’t know it added up to 150 MILLION.

    CNN did the accounting a couple of months ago.

    Hillary Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, combined to earn more than $153 million in paid speeches from 2001 until Hillary Clinton launched her presidential campaign last spring, a CNN analysis shows.

    In total, the two gave 729 speeches from February 2001 until May, receiving an average payday of $210,795 for each address. The two also reported at least $7.7 million for at least 39 speeches to big banks, including Goldman Sachs and UBS, with Hillary Clinton, the Democratic 2016 front-runner, collecting at least $1.8 million for at least eight speeches to big banks.

    I knew the bank part. I didn’t know the 150 MILLION part. Or maybe I did, but just didn’t register the scope of the exploitation.

    The analysis was made at a time when Hillary Clinton has been under scrutiny for her ties to Wall Street, which has been a major focus of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders on the campaign trail.

    “What being part of the establishment is, is in the last quarter, having a super PAC that raised $15 million from Wall Street, that throughout one’s life raised a whole lot of money from the drug companies and other special interests,” Sanders said at Thursday’s Democratic debate hosted by MSNBC.

    The former secretary of state testily responded to Sanders’ charges.

    “Time and time again, by innuendo, by insinuation, there is this attack that he is putting forth which really comes down to, you know, anybody who ever took donations or speaking fees from any interest group has to be bought. And I just absolutely reject that, senator, and I really don’t think these kinds of attacks by insinuation are worthy of you. And enough is enough,” Clinton said.

    She then challenged him: “If you’ve got something to say, say it directly, but you will not find that I ever changed a view or a vote because of any donation I ever received.”

    You know, she really should stop making that argument. She should stop personalizing the issue and be honest about the real issue, the not-personal issue – that money in politics is corrupting, and that’s why bribery is a bad thing and should not be allowed, no matter how nice and upstanding any particular politician may be. It doesn’t matter that she’s convinced she never changed a view or a vote because of any donation (if she really is convinced of that, as opposed to just performing conviction). She doesn’t get to exempt herself from general laws because she knows how wonderful she is. She doesn’t get to make it about her character. For that matter she doesn’t get to act as if she has no clue that people can be wrong about their own motives, and lie to themselves about how good they are, and the like. She should be acting as if she is subject to the same errors and biases and self-interested motivations as other human beings are, as opposed to assuming and telling us she is saintly and incorruptible to an extent beyond the reach of ordinary people.

    Also, she doesn’t get to be that fatuous about influence and agency. How could it be the case that donations and inflated speaking fees had no influence on her views and votes whatsoever? That would be supernatural. Why should her views and votes be supernatural when no one else’s are? How exactly did she manage to make herself wholly immune to the influence of huge sums of money?

    By saying that kind of shit she just does more to entrench the whole disgusting corrupt process. It pisses me off.