Author: Ophelia Benson

  • UCL on iERA event

    From UCL News.

    An organisation known as the Islamic Education and Research Academy (IERA) booked a room at UCL for a debate on Saturday evening (9 March). UCL was notified during Friday by some individuals planning to attend the event that the organisers intended to segregate the audience by gender.

    This was directly contrary to UCL policy. We do not allow enforced segregation on any grounds at meetings held on campus. We immediately made clear to the organisers that the event would be cancelled if there were any attempt to enforce such segregation. We also required the organisers to make it explicit to attendees that seating arrangements were optional, and guests were welcome to sit wherever they felt comfortable. We also arranged for additional security staff to be present to ensure that people were not seated against their wishes.

    It now appears that, despite our clear instructions, attempts were made to enforce segregation at the meeting. We are still investigating what actually happened at the meeting but, given IERA’s original intentions for a segregated audience we have concluded that their interests are contrary to UCL’s ethos and that we should not allow any further events involving them to take place on UCL premises.

  • Guest post on the “debate” at UCL

    Guest post by Abishek N. Phadnis

    The Missionary Position

    Six weeks ago, Student Rights published its findings on the infestation of rabble-rousing Islamic preachers in British universities over the past year. Topping the charts was trash-talking noisemaker Hamza Tzortzis, with his hit single “we as Muslims reject the idea of freedom of speech, and even the idea of freedom”. That he has alchemised this rather exotic view into a career as a self-styled ‘intellectual activist’ is the least of his many contradictions.

    Mr. Tzortzis is an alumnus of the Hizb-ut-Tahrir, a global Sunni extremist movement against the evils of homosexuality, Jewishness, women, democracy, freedom and probably happiness itself. He is a champion of such worthy causes as the criminalisation of homosexuality , the dragging of Britain into the Islamic Caliphate and the amputation of limbs for minor crimes. His brand of rabble-rousing, however, eschews violent radicalisation for a more insidious form of reactionary preaching that sexes up a dark and twisted interpretation of Islam as the ideal.

    It is almost received wisdom now that intellectual honesty isn’t one of Mr. Tzortzis’s strongest suits. During his invasion of Sheffield Hallam University last month, his acolytes in the Islamic Society secured him a debate with the Atheist Society who, until the very eve, were given the impression that the opponent would be an Islamic Society student. This afforded Mr. Tzortzis the opportunity to alternate his gormless pseudo-profundity with some self-indulgent whingeing about the reluctance of high-profile unbelievers to debate him.

    This bag of squalid tricks resurfaced in the run-up to Mr. Tzortzis’s debate with the cosmologist Lawrence Krauss at University College London. The London heathen audience’s preparations for the debate, focused largely on devising rude puns of Mr. Tzortzis’s name, were thrown into disarray when it emerged that the organiser, Big Debates, was a front for the missionary Islamic Education and Research Academy , which counts among its ‘Permanent Staff’ one Hamza Tzortzis.

    Intrigued by this subterfuge, they dug further and discovered that an iERA functionary was to moderate the event, that questions had to be submitted in advance and had to include a mention of the questioner’s religious belief, that the organisers’ insistence on knowing the religious inclination of each ticket-holder at the time of registration was ostensibly to guide the allocation of tickets and that, in the heart of Bloomsbury, a supposedly serious debate was to be conducted before a gender-segregated audience. Meanwhile, a number of closeted ex-Muslims were distraught to discover that they had been hoodwinked into handing over their personal details to an Islamic organisation.

    A spirited volley of e-mails ensued, as the agitated atheists petitioned UCL to reassert first principles of equality. Britain’s original mixed-gender university issued a swift, firm and decisive statement the same afternoon affirming that no gender-segregated seating arrangement would be permitted.

    By then, the LSE atheists had discovered the typical iERA debate to be a raucously self-congratulatory affair with an audience ten parts Muslim to one part unbeliever, where every mention of He-Who-Must-not-be-Named is prefaced with a chorus of superstitious Arabic gobbledygook, every mention of homosexuality is greeted by sneering catcalls and crowing videos spring up not long afterwards, with titles like like LOL Brother Muslim speaker CRUSHES/DESTROYS/OWNS atheist opponent.

    It became amply clear that iERA had pulled a textbook bait-and-switch on Professor Krauss and his supporters, who, resigned to an evening with Mr. Tzortzis, would now be subjected to the further indignity of doing so amidst an audience so unashamedly stacked against Professor Krauss, he might as well have saved himself the airfare and delivered his address to a cactus in his native Arizona.

    In the event, UCL’s assurance wasn’t worth the paper it was written on, as its Equality and Diversity Policy was roundly trashed in a brazen display of religious chauvinism that will rankle long in the memory of those who attended. The evening turned sour right at the outset, as attendees were herded through segregated entrances into ‘Ladies’ and ‘Gentlemen’ sections. Five minutes of remonstration yielded a slender two-row mixed section for the debauched, with the remaining twenty devoted to good old-fashioned chastity. The five rows with the worst views comprised the Ladies’ Area.

    Matters came to a head when two male attendees were forced out of a section of the auditorium which turned out to be part of the Ladies’ Area. Incensed, they raised the matter with the organisers but were staggered to see the organisers set the guards on them instead, this time with the express intention of evicting them from the auditorium itself for “unruly behaviour”. Verily this behaviour cited consisted of little more than the temerity to occupy a vacant seat in a public auditorium and to protest one’s unjust eviction, without recourse to raised voices or physical contact.

    By then, Professor Krauss had been informed of this scandal, and hurried upstairs to intercede on our behalf. He insisted that the two seemed dignified and restrained, and did not appear to pose the slightest threat to the peace of the gathering. Undeterred, the guards piled falsehood upon falsehood, levelling slanderous allegations of harassment and intimidation, though it eluded many why any man without a Dementor fetish would choose such a gathering for sexual mischief. That the objectors were outnumbered seven to one by the guards indicates how laughable this allegation was. Professor Krauss, unable to unable to bear this pious farce any longer, issued a terse ultimatum – he would leave in protest unless the evictees were returned, unscathed, to the auditorium.

    This nuclear option concentrated the organisers’ minds and they sought refuge in one last petty trick, emptying out a row of the Ladies’ Section for the pair by scattering its previous inhabitants to upper reaches of that section.

    It is difficult to express fully how disillusioning it was to see UCL’s staff openly siding with scripture-sodden prudes bent on simulating the social mores of 7th-century Arabia. A Dr. Rehman, reportedly of the UCL Chemistry Department, staunchly defended the His ‘n’ Hers farce as being endorsed by UCL. The UCL guards refused to intercede on the pair’s behalf, claiming that their brief was to follow the organisers’ instructions.

    To complete the infamy, only one of the ten or so questioners in the Q&A session at the end of the debate was a ‘sister’. Her pathetic contribution was to exhume the carcass of the seating issue. Professor Krauss shot back that women so viscerally offended by unthreatening male company in a public space would do well to stay home and spare others their sanctimonious conservatism.

    Organisations like iERA find visceral joy in the blood-sport of bringing down a giant of the opposition, like Lilliputians downing Gulliver, in the rigged travesty of a format they call a debate. One finds increasingly that this lack of scruple is visited upon dissenting members of the audience too. To the extent that Mr. Tzortzis is currently on an Islamic Awareness Tour, we’re delighted he’s raising awareness of the sinister strain of Islam that’s peddled on Britain’s university campuses, a spiteful and bigoted thing that appeals to the base instincts of the hot-headed and the impetuous. That the unapologetic crookedness of his cabal caught us unawares suggests we could all do with a little more awareness.

  • The Guardian on gender segregation at UCL event

    University College London said reports of segregation at the debate hosted by the Islamic Education and Research Academy on 9 March were worrying.

  • Skeptical Science on gender segregation at UCL event

    Attendees were rather astonished to discover upon arrival that two doors had been set up, one strictly for females and the other for males.

  • UCL on gender segregation at iERA event

    We do not allow enforced segregation on any grounds at meetings held on campus.

  • Press release on gender segregation at UCL event

    The following is a statement by concerned students.

    Sexual segregation at a UCL event is a scandal

    A policy of sexual segregation was enforced at an event at University College London on Saturday, with the organisers’ security trying to physically remove members of the audience who would not comply.

    Seating at the event was segregated between men and women, with a small ‘mixed’ space allocated for couples.

    Separate entrances were in place for women and men, although ‘couples’ were allowed to enter via the men’s door. Male attendees were refused entry via the women’s door.

    The event “Islam vs Atheism” on Saturday 9th was organised by the Islamic Education and Research Academy (IERA), and pitted writer Hamza Tzortzis against Professor Laurence Krauss in a debate.

    A policy of segregation was suggested by IERA in a statement before the event, which said: “As for seating, it is according to when the ticket was booked and gender.” This was raised by students with UCL, who gave assurances that no segregation would be allowed.

    Fiona McClement, UCL equalities and diversities adviser, said on 8th March: “We have been in contact with the event organisers and made it clear that UCL will not permit enforced gender segregated seating. All attendees are free to sit wherever they feel comfortable.”

    Sarah Guise, head of equalities and diversity, deans of students Mike Ewing (academic) and Ruth Siddall (welfare), as well as UCL gender champions Professor Mary Collins and Baroness Diana Warwick of Undercliffe, were also informed of the plans of the organisers to breach UCL’s Equality and Diversity policy.

    Ms McClement and Rob de Bruin, co-chair of the 50:50 Gender Equality Group, said: “The UCL security team will be in attendance to ensure compliance with this. If the event organisers do not comply, the event will not be permitted to go ahead.”

    Despite these assurances, segregation was enforced on the night.

    At the entrance to the UCL building audience members were separated into male and female only queues by the organisers’ security staff.

    The policy of segregation was strictly enforced inside the building. Male attendees were refused entry via the women’s door to the lecture theatre. When asked if the event was segregated, one of the security staff said: “It’s slightly segregated.” Dr Aisha Rahman said she was an organiser and that the room had been booked on behalf of UCL Chemistry. She said the segregation had been agreed with the University and suggested more than once that the men should be refused entry.

    Several attendees approached UCL’s security personnel to alert them to the situation, but found that the staff were unwilling to intervene, and were instructed to comply with the organisers’ policy of segregation.

    After more discussion, three male attendees were told they would be permitted to sit in the women’s section, but were directed to an isolated space on the side of the lecture theatre, away from everyone else.

    One of the students, Christopher Roche, said: “It was clear that the segregation was still in effect as when I sat in the same aisle as female attendees I was immediately instructed by security to exit the theatre. I was taken to a small room with IERA security staff and an organiser named Mohammad who told me that the policy was actually given to IERA by UCL.

    “Shocked, I said that I would like to return to my seat but was told that security would now remove me from the premises for refusing to comply with the gender segregation.”

    The organisers’ security staff then tried to physically remove Mr Roche and Adam Barnett, a journalism student and friend of Mr Roche, from the theatre.

    Professor Krauss intervened and threatened to leave to stop the removal of the two audience members. The organisers then prepared a row near the women’s section at the back of the room where the two men sat quietly for the event. Professor Kraus said he had been told in advance that there would be no segregation, and that people could sit wherever they wanted.

    Adam Barnett said: “What happened on Saturday is a scandal. UCL and the organisers owe an apology to me, my friend, the audience and the general public. For a London University to allow forced segregation by sex in 2013 is disgraceful.

    “The organisers should also apologise for their appalling behaviour if they want to hold any more events on campuses in the future.”

    He added: “It’s insulting to be told that because I’m a man I can’t sit near women in the audience. I’m not in the habit of forcing my presence where it’s unwanted, but the event’s organisers have no business policing social matters of this kind. Furthermore, the women in question were never asked whether they cared where we sat.”

    “In this case the segregation was non-voluntary. But voluntary or not, segregation is wrong, as well as a violation of UCL policy.”

    Chris Moos, a PhD student who sought assurances from UCL before the debate, said: “Having personally attended this event, I cannot tell you how disappointed I and many other attendees are that UCL did not live up to its promise to make sure that its Equality and Diversity policy was enforced.

    “Overall, the atmosphere of the event was intimidating for both male and female students, who were shocked to see that although concerns about the plans to enforce gender segregation had been raised before with UCL, the organisers were able to

    violate its policy and create a threatening and divisive atmosphere that was not inclusive to all attendees.”

  • Walkout in UCL over Gender Segregation at iERA event

    The Islamic Education and Research Academy is an extreme Islamist organization, whose staff includes Islamist hate preachers such as Hamza Tzortzis and Yusuf Chambers.

  • SMF asks Miliband to rethink his support for ritual genital cutting

    A press release from the Secular Medical Forum:

    On 7 March Ed Miliband told an audience in London that he supports ritual genital cutting of children.  In reference to circumcision and kosher food the leader of the Labour party said:  ‘These are important traditions … ways of life must be preserved’.  The Secular Medical Forum condemns this announcement and asks Mr Miliband to rethink his support for ritual genital cutting.

    It is a Jewish tradition to remove the prepuce (foreskin) of baby boys when they are eight days old.  This operation disregards autonomy and exposes the child to significant risks, including bleeding, infection and death.  The Secular Medical Forum questions why Mr Miliband supports ritual circumcision given that it is ethically flawed and medically dangerous. Ironically, the meeting was held at the Royal College of Surgeons, a respected organisation that educates surgeons in the ethics and practice of surgery. The first principle of healthcare is ‘primum non nocere – first do no harm’.  This guidance is disregarded by supporters of ritual circumcision.  The meeting was arranged by the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the senior representative body of Jewish people in the United Kingdom.

    The Vice-President of the Board of Deputies, Jonathan Arkush, debated the controversy of circumcision with the chair of the Secular Medical Forum, Antony Lempert, on 28 February. Mr Arkush astonished the audience by refusing to protect babies from metzizah b’peh, the tradition in which the Jewish circumciser sucks the infant’s cut penis.  Mr Arkush, a barrister, disapproved of oral-genital contact between an adult and a child but refused to call for a ban upon this tradition saying: “I’m not in favour of banning things”.  The full debate is available here.  The Secular Medical Forum would like to ask Mr Miliband if he is aware that metzizah b’peh takes place in the UK and whether it should be banned so that children are protected from the harms of this tradition.

    Mr Miliband, quite rightly, told the Board of Deputies that he was against anti-semitism, which is the hatred of Jews simply for being Jewish.   In confusing contrast, Jonathan Arkush compared all people who oppose ritual circumcision, including those working in child protection, to Hitler. Dr Lempert, who is the GP representative member of a Local Safeguarding Children’s Board, responded to this misguided attack. Dr Lempert said that he also abhors anti-semitism and explained that anti-semitism is happening when well-meaning people fail to protect children of Jewish parents from the harm caused by ritual circumcision.  Supporters of ritual genital cutting, including Mr Miliband, should not attempt to preserve a way of life at the expense of the genital integrity of a child who is too young to consent to the operation.

    The Secular Medical Forum calls on Mr Miliband to focus squarely on the rights of vulnerable infants and children.  Mr Miliband should prioritise the rights of children rather than harmful religious traditions.  Mr Miliband should defend the weak, rather than preserve abusive traditions.  He should not be misled by misplaced allegations of anti-semitism against those striving to protect children from harm.

    The Secular Medical Forum works to protect all people from the imposition of other people’s beliefs in medicine.  The Secular Medical Forum wants there to be freedom of religion, but also freedom from religion, especially for children. The Secular Medical Forum campaigns against all forms of ritual genital cutting and campaigns for a safer world where children can grow up with an intact body and can make their own decisions later in life.  The Secular Medical Forum is a non-profit campaign organisation run by volunteers for the protection of patients.

  • Child inmates flung themselves to the ground

    Marie-Therese has a powerful article about shunning at ur-B&W. She has extended and corrosive experience of being shunned, starting with the nightmare of life in the industrial “school” in Dublin where she was imprisoned from childhood through adolescence.

    The very thought of the word absolutely sends shivers down my spine. Shunning is indicative of pure ruthless social rejection, a thing I grew up with in Goldenbridge. I also associate it with children who were very friendly with each other in the institution, who, alas, were severely mocked and jeered and separated from each other by staff. The latter called them ‘love birds’ then castigated and shunned them. There were also children who were different from others, and they too were deliberately avoided by other children and not allowed to associate with the group. Goldenbridge children, who did not know the meaning of mother or father figures, should not have been targeted in a shunning manner by grown-ups, whose sole responsibility was to act in loco parentis. It was the antithesis of any kind of loving parenting or caring guardianship. The children who turned their backs on other children, however,  were only doing what they had seen those in charge doing all the time. It was learned behaviour. A warped environment begets warped behaviour. 
Mother and father figures are most important in children’s lives and deprivation of them was punishment enough, without having the added burden of being shunned by grown-ups. Mother and father words meant nothing to institutionalised inmates…excepting that they were words synonymous with beatings, whereby children had hollered out those very words…’O Mammy…O Daddy’ after a big thick shiny polished bark of a tree was rained down heavily by the nun in charge after the children had spent hours on a cold landing awaiting said floggings. Child inmates were also prevented from knowing  or [O1]  speaking to the nuns in the convent. The latter were just like aliens from another planet. When child inmates dared to look back at them sitting in their personal convent chapel pews, with black hooded heads completely hidden and matching black gown trails sprawling all over the aisles, they were invariably told by the nun who caught them to go and wait on the dreaded cold landing for punishment.

    There was always so much punishment. The Ryan Report has many chapters on the subject.

    I have vivid recollections of sumptuous scraps of Marietta biscuits, soldier crusts of toast, and particles of cake from St. Ita’s staff table, that had been placed in an aluminium sieve by minor staff, and each day methodically flung out of the corridor window that faced directly into the sunless prison yard ground. Child inmates flung themselves to the ground and fiercely grabbed at the luscious leavings. The ‘scraps’ were as regular as clockwork, so inmates eagerly awaited them, as the scraps by the inmates had been considered as rare sumptuous food items. Inmates, who never had toast to eat, would gobble down the black burnt bits, as if they were expensive oysters. Dog-fights ensued. Some inmates snatched not only the gorgeous tasty scraps, but also the hair on the heads – the little that was left, anyway, – after-all getting heads shorn and cut short was the norm – of some inmates, and locked themselves into each other for a half an hour or so, at any given time, as they were so enraged at each other for getting the best scraps. The staff thought theses scenarios were hilarious. They thrived on inmates being vicious towards each other.

    I also remember on rare occasions such as feast-days when child inmates sitting on hard benches in the REC (euphemistically known as “the wreck” because of the savage beatings that regularly occurred there by staff members when the nuns were up praying in the convent) were given two or three bulls-eye sweets. If a dislike by a staff member to a particular child occurred, with the shiny silver mirrored can with delicate handle the nasty staff member would bypass that child, and the one sitting next to it got extra sweets, to rub it in even more. The horrible staff member – hugging the can – would then glide along the benches with a smirk on her face. It not only caused terrible tension in the child who was left sweet-less but also to the rest of the onlookers who wondered whether they were going to suffer the same ignominious despicable fate. Shunning innocent children was normal behaviour.

    At first blush that perhaps doesn’t look like shunning as such, but in fact it is. Children who aren’t shunned aren’t treated that way. The children were treated that way because they were so thoroughly, comprehensively, horribly shunned, by the staff, the nuns, the chursh, the state – which allowed the church to brutalize them that way – and all of Ireland, which knew they were there and turned a cold hard blind eye. It’s only shunned children who can be thrown scraps as a joke for adults. It’s only shunned children that an adult will torture over sweets.

    When I returned to Ireland from Birmingham in the mid-eighties I resided in Ballyjamesduff, Co Cavan. It is a small rural town in the province of Ulster, which now comprises fewer than 2,000 inhabitants. Its claim to fame is Father Brendan Smyth, who was a notorious paedophile – who in the early nineties almost brought the Irish government to its knees because of the child abuse scandals. In this community I experienced shunning on a gargantuan scale by a certain section of that close-knit society. I put the shunning down to not having had any proper place, or family status, and due to being friendly with an unmarried mother, who by large swathes of the community was forever shunned. Some townies would cross the other side of the main street to avoid her. I saw it on so many occasions and was absolutely infuriated with their low-down ignorant behaviour. Think fallen woman! She had become hardened to all the hostility she grew up with in the town and was aware of the two-faced shenanigans of some specific insular folk. The same community that mostly never spoke out about alleged heinous crimes of the priest for fear of offending the religious. The hypocrisy knew no bounds.

    I also lived in a bed-sit and was frowned upon by snootier elements of the town. They were wont to steer clear of those less fortunate. Survival of the fittest! The things as they were must always be maintained to keep their superior status – one mustn’t let one’s self be contaminated by the mere riff-raff who wandered out of nowhere into town, and even worse still, a returning emigrant. I was “a blow-in.” In small towns everyone must know everyone else’s business. They have to know one’s intergenerational antecedents. My Goldenbridge institutional past was a well-kept secret. I had never spoken to a sinner in my entire life about my childhood. In fact, I had spent my entire time in England concocting stories about a family that never existed. I created them to suit the occasion. A lot of survivors of industrial “schools” would know exactly what I’m talking about here, as they would have resorted to similar survival tactics. I was completely unaware of the trap I was falling into upon deciding to live in a wee town in “the valley of the squinting windows.” My mother and her husband had lived three miles away in the country, so I fell naturally into that situation. Besides, I never would have dreamt of going to live in Dublin, as I was actually afraid of any association connected to Goldenbridge. It actually took me ten years to come to terms with facing Dublin. To this day I still cannot go back to the industrial “school” area. I thought I was safe in a small town, but no, not at all. The opposite.

    There was a particular incident where I went to an audition to join The Frolics Musical Society. A whole group of people who were known to me by sight was in full conversation on my arrival to the audition. There was suddenly utter silence when I entered the room. One person even got up from her seat to move away from me, when I sat down in the chair beside her. I was so mortified that I quietly went into the loo and disappeared. I know that I was in a bad place with respect of familial problems, and it might have shown in my demeanour. I thought that by entering into a hobby that I was very interested in, that it would bring me out of myself, and help me to get back on my feet. I was gobsmacked, as the amount of courage it took me to even contemplate on going there, knowing that a lot of them would not even bid me the time of day on the street was devastating to the psyche. I just didn’t have the emotional skills to turn it around and change things, as such emotional energy had until then been drained because of having to continually cover up about my past.

    Read the whole thing.

  • Meet Kirk Sneade

    Something I didn’t know about – a guy who pretended to self-identify as female to run for Women’s Officer at UCL. Oh ha ha, I can smell the jokes from here.

    The UCL student uploaded a video of a woman being punched by a man and a photo with the slogan “memes are gay” as part of his campaign. Sneade, who is now claiming discrimination, reportedly likened his plight to the communist persecution in Nazi Germany.

    Sneade’s original manifesto stated:

      • Kirk Sneade has self defined as a woman ever since he realised it gave him legal access to the women’s changing rooms at the Bloomsbury gym.
    • Kirk wants to make clear his desire to attend all Women’s forums to talk about Important Woman Issues such as hair dressing, shopping and walking sassily away from confrontations with your exes.
    • Kirk understands the need for equality. He wants to campaign to encourage women of UCL to wear leggings, jeggings and summer-time denim hot-pants.
    • Kirk would also like to formally change the name of the Print-Room Cafe to the Pretty-Girl Cafe, and launch an official enquiry into why there are so many pretty girls in the cafe compared to the rest of UCL and what can be done about it.
    • More speculatively, Kirk also suggests perhaps herding up the pretty girls you see around campus and keeping them ready for emergency transport to the Roxy later on when things start to get a little dry.
    • Kirk is worried that people may see this manifesto as sexist. Kirk wants to make clear that while it is sexier than most, you should probably have a look at the others because some of them are pretty sexy as well.
    • Kirk also wants to campaign for reinstatement of the Varsity rugby match, campaign against student politics being full of students who are out of touch with the student body and start the dissolution of the Women’s officer position as it an inherently sexist and outmoded position of power within the union.

    Hahaha. Funnier than anti-Semitic humor, funnier than racist humor, funny than homphobic humor – there’s just nothing quite as funny as contempt-for-women humor.

     

  • A war on information now?

    As I mentioned, Richard Dawkins has an informative post about the UCL debate yesterday at RDF. Very good. I tried to add to the information Richard provided by linking to the information I had provided on Friday, but a moderator removed the link to my post almost instantly.

    Why?

    I took a look at the Terms & Conditions, and I can’t find anything that forbids links to blog posts. I’m not surprised not to find such a thing, because that would be an incredibly stupid policy for a website to have. Blog posts can be informative, so it would be ludicrous to make a general policy against links to blogs.

    So then why?

    I have no idea. The Friday post is relevant because it documents that the organizers were on the record as having agreed to Krauss’s insistence that there be no gender segregation. It documents that this was public information on Friday.

    Why on earth remove that?

    I did another comment explaining the (obvious) relevance and asking for the link to be left, but that whole comment was deleted.

    What is wrong with them? If they have an ironclad rule against posting blog links, why isn’t it visible somewhere? And if they do, why do they, when it would be such a stupid rule?

    Then I wrote the post that quoted Chris Moos’s new letter to UCL, and commented at RDF to say I had new information and posted that link – and it was instantly removed.

    What is wrong with them?

  • Krauss says no

    Dana Sondergaard attended the debate at UCL yesterday, and she recorded a video of Lawrence Krauss packing up his things and leaving because the gender segregation he’d objected to was still being enforced. It’s a public post on Facebook.

    “No!” he says, making the “no” gesture with his hands. “No gender segregation or I’m out of here.”

  • More on yesterday at UCL

    Chris Moos has written again to UCL, and urges others to do the same. He gives a detailed account of how the gender segregation was enforced and what a crap job UCL did of interfering with it. Hello world, it’s 2013, and University College London is allowing segregated events on its campus. Chris has given me permission to quote his letter.

    Following up on the emails I had sent you on Thursday and Friday, I am writing to inform you that I was shocked about the manner in which the Islam or Atheism: The Big Debate event was carried out yesterday.

    1) The organisers clearly and repeatedly violated UCL’s Equality and Diversity policy. Not only did they enforce gender segregation, but five security guards of the organiser intimidated and attempted to physically remove audience members who refused to comply, falsely claiming that these attendees had been disruptive. Both male and female audience members felt intimidated by the actions of the organiser’s security guards.

    Only after Professor Krauss threatened thrice to leave the debate if the organisers should continue to enforce gender segregation (follow this link: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10151324574843231 ), the organisers cleared one row of the women’s area and allowed the male attendees to sit there, thereby maintaining forced gender segregation. Notably, the women who were sitting in that row were not asked by the security guards whether they would feel comfortable with a man sitting next to them, or whether they would be willing to move. Forced gender segregation was thus maintained.

    Keep in mind that the segregation was arranged in advance, by assigning seating on the tickets and stipulating that the seating assignments could not be changed.

    The five security guards of the organiser – that’s new information. I didn’t know that via any of the tweets, or Krauss’s Facebook post either. Fabulous. They enforced gender segregation and they tried to physically remove people who disobeyed. London, 2013.

    2) Separate entrances were in place for women and men, although ‘couples’ were allowed to enter via the men’s door. Several members of the organiser’s security team directed people to stand in either the male or female queue based on their sex, both at the entrance to the building and the lecture theatre. Signs pointing to “men” and “women” areas were in place.  There were no signs for a mixed seating area, and attendees were guided by the guards to either the “female” or “male” area. Only attendees who insisted not to be separated were guided towards a “mixed” area, which only comprised two rows.

    That is not what the Equality advisor told Chris would happen. She said there would be a large mixed area. She also said people could self-segregate if they wanted to – which she should not have said. It’s not possible to self-segregate in a public space without shunning other people, so we’re right back where we started.

    God almighty. Segregated fucking queues – in London, in 2013.

    3) A woman who identified herself as a Chemistry teacher at UCL said the segregation had been agreed with UCL. She also stated, that “I’m actually booking this room on behalf of UCL Chemistry, I’m Dr Aisha Rahman”. Dr Rahman repeatedly refused two male attendees access to the “women’s” seating area. When asked if the event was segregated another security guard said: “It’s slightly segregated.”

    Oh, slightly, well that’s all right then.

    4) There were only two UCL security guards on site, and they at first declined to help two audience members who were being denied access to the “women’s” seating area. They said that the only instructions they had received were to follow the instructions of the organisers. They specifically told the attendees who wanted to sit in the woman’s area to comply with the instructions of the organiser. Only after pointing the UCL security guards to that fact that they might be complicit in a breach of UCL’s Equality and Diversity policy, they reluctantly agreed to “look into the issue”.

    None of that matches what the Equality Advisor told Chris on Friday. It’s a stinking outrage.

    I cannot tell you how disappointed I and many other attendees are that UCL did not live up to its promise to make sure that its Equality and Diversity policy was enforced and that the event was inclusive for all attendees.

    Overall, the atmosphere of the event was intimidating for both male and female attendees. Attendees were shocked to see that although concerns about the plans to enforce gender segregation had been raised before with UCL, the organisers were able to violate UCL’s Equality and Diversity policy, discriminating attendees by their apparent gender and creating a threatening and divisive atmosphere that was not inclusive to all attendees.

    It is an outrage.

    Chris provided contact addresses last week:

    Head of Equalities and Diversity Sarah Guise
    For staff and student queries related to age, disability, gender, race, religion & belief and sexual orientation.
    Email s.guise@ucl.ac.uk
    Ext. 53989

    Equalities and Diversity Adviser
    Fiona McClement
    For staff and student queries related to age, disability, gender, race, religion & belief and sexual orientation.

    Email: f.mcClement@ucl.ac.uk

    Ext 53988

    Policy Advisor – Athena SWAN and women in SET
    Harriet Jones

    For queries related to the Athena SWAN Charter.

    Email: harriet.jones@ucl.ac.uk

    Equalities and Policy Administrator Sonal Bharadva
    For general enquiries.
    Email: s.bharadva@ucl.ac.uk

    Ext. 53991

    50:50 Gender Equality Group
    Annette Dolphin, Co-Chair,

    Rob de Bruin, Co-Chair

    a.dolphin@ucl.ac.uk,

    r.debruin@ucl.ac.uk

    Professor Mary Collins
    Gender Champion
    Dean of Life Sciences
    mary.collins@ucl.ac .uk

    —–
    Baroness Diana Warwick of Undercliffe
    Gender Champion
    Member of Council
    warwickd@parliament.uk

    —-
    Dean of Students
    Academic, Mike Ewing

    m.b.ewing@ucl.ac.uk.ac.uk
    Ext.24649

    —–
    Welfare, Ruth Siddall dean.of.students@ucl.ac.uk
    Ext. 32758

  • Yesterday at UCL

    Richard Dawkins has a fuller account of what happened yesterday at the “Islam or Atheism?” debate at UCL, via Krauss himself.

    A few days ago, I had received a tip-off from somebody who had made an inquiry about tickets: ‘We contacted the organizers today and learnt that “as for seating, it is according to when the ticket was booked and gender”.’

    I’m guessing that somebody was Chris Moos, since he’s been all over this and I don’t know of anyone else who has. Chris does great work.

    I passed this on to Lawrence, with the suggestion that he might consider withdrawing from the whole affair. He immediately asked the organizers, who assured him that the audience would not be segregated by sex, and Lawrence agreed to go ahead.

    Yes indeed. I reported that here, on Friday. I updated my post on the subject twice to report that the organizers had agreed on no gender segregation. Well guess what: they had their fingers crossed behind their backs. In short, they lied to Krauss to get him to show up.

    When he got to the meeting he discovered that actually the seating in the auditorium was indeed segregated by sex. There was a men’s section, a women’s section, and a “couples” section. Did the “couples” have to produce a marriage certificate, one can’t help wondering? And, while wondering such things, what would have been the reaction of the audience if they had been segregated, as in apartheid South Africa, into a black section, a white section and a “coloureds” section?

    Prefuckingcisely.

    When Lawrence realised that he had been duped, he immediately secured permission from the organizers to announce that – contrary to previous instructions – people could sit wherever they wanted. Three young men, described by Lawrence as nice gentle guys, then got up and moved to the women’s section in the back. “In the back”, by the way, may resonate with those who remember Rosa Parks in Alabama in 1955. Security guards then tried to eject the three young men. Lawrence went to find out why, and the guards told him the three were a “threat”. Threat to whom, one wonders?

    Ah-ha – remember that tweet from Mo Ansar yesterday? About the big atheist meanies insisting on sitting with the “Muslim women” who didn’t want them to? How tf did he know? Since the seating was segregated, it’s not clear that the women in the back had a choice. [Which raises a new question. What about the “non-Muslim” women there? Were there any, and if so, did they object to being put in a “women’s section”? Perhaps they didn’t realize it was one at first. The segregation was stealthily done via assigned seating on the tickets.]

    Lawrence then packed his bag and walked out, explaining why he was doing so, and this part of the evening’s events was filmed by Dana Sondergaard on a smartphone. She sent the film to Lawrence and has said that I can re-post it here. Her own eye-witness account of the event is on her Facebook page.

    And on Krauss’s Facebook page, eleventy hundred times. I saw her tweets yesterday – I wondered if she was the only secular woman there. She may well have been.

    It is unclear whether the UCL authorities were aware that sexual apartheid was being practised in one of their lecture rooms, but we may hope that a full inquiry will be launched.

    University College, London is celebrated as an early haven of enlightened free thinking, the first university college in England to have a secular foundation, and the first to admit men and women on equal terms. Heads should roll.

    Ah, the authorites were aware. Chris Moos told them, and they responded to him, as we saw on Friday.

    The plot thickens.

  • “Don’t get involved – don’t speak – it’s pointless.”

    Guest post by Simon Davis.

    On Thursday March 7, an Athens court acquitted Greek neo-nazi Golden Dawn MP Ilias Kasidiaris on charges of assault. Outside the courthouse, Kasidiaris stated:

    I am rubbing this decision in the faces of the media and sad politicians. I have a lot of opposition that today would like me to be in jail and a lot of people who want Chrysi Avgi to be on the sidelines, but we are here, we are very powerful and soon we will be dominant.

    The Greek site Luben published the following account from a person who “had the misfortune of living through this seven year ordeal from the beginning”, which I have translated to English. I have spoken to several people familiar with the case who have vouched for the veracity of the account. The original in Greek is here.

    ———–

    You are a graduate student.

    You are on campus.

    A car stops at a location where you are alone.

    Five muscle-bound men with shaved heads and sticks beat you to a pulp and stab you in the leg.

    They steal your police ID and therefore know where you live.

    The only reason for their actions is your appearance.

    Despite your fear, you decide to fight back.

    You find out that someone had recorded the car’s license plate.

    You press charges.

    The police discover that the car belongs to a man by the name of “Kasidiaris”, who is a candidate for parliament in the Golden Dawn political party with 0.5% in the polls.

    The court case drags on for seven years due to repeated delays.

    During that time, you see the thug that stabbed you be elected to parliament.

    You see him become of popular hero to a segment of society.

    The day of the trial, you have to testify about your traumatic experience in front of a court room that is full of Golden Dawn members in the audience.

    You ask that the trial be held in a different hall. Your request is denied.

    As you describe the scene of the attack, the hostile audience mocks and teases you.

    The orchestrator of the attack, the person who in previous delays of the trial would taunt you in the courthouse corridors, now speaks as if he is Mother Teresa and that he “sympathizes” and “condemns violence, as does the whole of Golden Dawn”.

    How ironic.

    He is found innocent of the charges.

    He rubs the verdict in your face, they are all-powerful, they are dominant.

    You learned your lesson. “Don’t get involved – don’t speak – it’s pointless.”

    ———–

    You are 60 years old.

    You have worked at the university your entire professional life.

    Your husband is in and out of the hospital for chemotherapy.

    You see five muscle bound men beating up a student on campus.

    You record the license plate number.

    You try to find out what happened. The students who are there tell you “I didn’t see, I don’t know, don’t involve me”.

    You report the incident to the university, and you together with the victim, give a statement that you saw the license plate number to the police.

    After a few days, the police officer informs you that the car belongs to a man named “Kasidiaris” that is a member of a neonazi gang. He recommends you do not get involved. (It will turn out that he gave good advice)

    You know that you will go through a gruelling process, and you know that your are getting involved in a case that could put your life at risk, but you decide to do the right thing regardless of the cost.

    You find out from television that you are a “top official for the SYRIZA political party” despite the fact that you have never been a member of any party.

    Kasidiaris refers to you publicly as a “pimp”, claiming that you are following orders.

    He states publicly that you are charged with a crime, without mentioning that this because he has sued you for perjury.

    You are in and out of court for seven years as the case is repeatedly delayed.

    You testify about what you witnessed.

    The pro-nazi lawyer insults you and insinuates that at 60 years of age you decided to involve in a totally unrelated case a complete -at the time- unknown person, for political purposes.

    The prosecutor and the judge allow the lawyer to insult you and to speak to you as if you are a criminal. They dismiss your testimony.

    A reporter with spiky hair states from the witness stand that you could have very easily found the license plate number from the website indymedia. You did not even know that indymedia existed.

    You are found to be an unreliable witness, as opposed to the defendant’s friends who testify that they saw him in his car that morning, who are found to be reliable despite there never having been any evidence presented that the car was located elsewhere.

    The trial is over. Innocent.

    Now you are charged with perjury. At 67 years of age. Your predicament continues and the court decision will weigh against you.

    The newspaper “Proto Thema” publishes your name and picture which are now on neo-nazi sites alongside filthy comments.

    This is what you won for your good deed.

    You learned your lesson. “Don’t get involved – don’t speak – it’s pointless”

    ———–

    You are a thug for a neonazi organization.

    You write odes to Hitler on their official magazine.

    You manage to become the great führer’s right hand man.

    You go on raids with your car and beat people up.

    One of these people dares to press charges.

    Now you are a member of parliament.

    Beating up a 50 year old woman and avoiding arrest for two days you manage to become a popular hero and a political star.

    Seven years later when you can’t get any more continuances, you appear in court.

    You have arranged to have 100 muscle-bound men sit in all the seats in the courtroom two hours before the start of the trial.

    Even though your car was leased by your employer and you claimed it was in a parking lot, and even though your company asks for receipts in order to reimburse for expenses, you have no evidence to present to the court.

    The judge and the prosecutor speak to you with the utmost deference. The word “defendant” is never used.

    The prosecutor recommends acquittal. It is obvious that this a political conspiracy from the left.

    The presiding judge agrees. Disagreeing in that atmosphere was hardly an option.

    You rub the verdict in their face. You are all-powerful, you are dominant

    Now they learned their lesson. “Don’t get involved – don’t speak – it’s pointless”

    Simon Davis is director of online marketing at a healthcare publications company. He grew up in Greece. You can tweet him at @SimonKnowz

  • Shunning

    Shunning Part I

    There’s been a lot of talk lately in the blogosphere corners I frequent on shunning. It has prompted me to write a few thoughts on what shunning means to me personally. 
The very thought of the word absolutely sends shivers down my spine. Shunning is indicative of pure ruthless social rejection, a thing I grew up with in Goldenbridge. I also associate it with children who were very friendly with each other in the institution, who, alas, were severely mocked and jeered and separated from each other by staff. The latter called them ‘love birds’ then castigated and shunned them. There were also children who were different from others, and they too were deliberately avoided by other children and not allowed to associate with the group. Goldenbridge children, who did not know the meaning of mother or father figures, should not have been targeted in a shunning manner by grown-ups, whose sole responsibility was to act in loco parentis. It was the antithesis of any kind of loving parenting or caring guardianship. The children who turned their backs on other children, however,  were only doing what they had seen those in charge doing all the time. It was learned behaviour. A warped environment begets warped behaviour. 
Mother and father figures are most important in children’s lives and deprivation of them was punishment enough, without having the added burden of being shunned by grown-ups. Mother and father words meant nothing to institutionalised inmates…excepting that they were words synonymous with beatings, whereby children had hollered out those very words…’O Mammy…O Daddy’ after a big thick shiny polished bark of a tree was rained down heavily by the nun in charge after the children had spent hours on a cold landing awaiting said floggings. Child inmates were also prevented from knowing  or [O1]  speaking to the nuns in the convent. The latter were just like aliens from another planet. When child inmates dared to look back at them sitting in their personal convent chapel pews, with black hooded heads completely hidden and matching black gown trails sprawling all over the aisles, they were invariably told by the nun who caught them to go and wait on the dreaded cold landing for punishment.

    The nuns rather reminded me of the TV advert of the ghost of death who on one stormy blizzard night knocks on the door of one Mrs. O’Connor. The ghost beckons to her to come along, that it was waiting for her. Fortunately for the blind aged woman, she saw not his black skeleton hooded demeanour and decided not to go with him, saying that she was busy cooking Xmas mince pies. Or – when the nuns came to the Rec hall on an annual basis to watch a film. Their black robes matched perfectly with the black cloths that covered the windows. Before the film reel was turned and children sat there in the pitch darkness there was an eerie ghostly feeling, as the black-attired aliens in the hall of horrors were totally invisible, but if the blood-red painted walls could speak – would whisper to them of the constant violent daily beatings that occurred there when the nuns in charge were out sight and sipping tea in the convent.

    The nuns were never allowed to have any personal interaction with GB child inmates. The latter were totally shunned. The parents used Goldenbridge and other industrial “schools” as weapon phrases to frighten children in their homes – if they were bold. “Now, if you don’t behave properly we’ll send you to the nuns at Goldenbridge.” The threats invariably worked, as no child wanted to be seen dead by anyone in an unfriendly Dickensian, cold, dark dank institution.

    Shunning happens when groups form solidarity with each other. It happens to religious groups and tightly knit organisations and communities. The intended targets are seen as enemies. Goldenbridge child inmates were easy shunning targets because the defenceless humble targets had nobody to look out for them. Period! Children in the nearby ‘outside’ national school in the same grounds had been warned by the nuns that they were not to glance at or dare to speak to children from GB industrial school. Woe betide them if they chanced to do so. That also included children who might have been connected to the inmates in a familial way. There was a stigma attached to children who were deemed the lowest of the lowest by Irish society. Think Untouchables [Dalits.]

    I think that I make assumptions about people SHUNNING me, because of looking through a very disturbed emotional lens. I do know that I’ve the propensity to get triggers, and because of these triggers everything can get super-heightened and writing can become disproportionately illogical and irrational. Think confirmation bias. It creeps into a lot of stuff. I think it comes into play a lot and perhaps distorts reality. I don’t, however, know how to fix the distortions. Rational thinking just goes out the door when there are trigger factors involved. Someone known to me put it to me succinctly:  “you read backward from the intensity of your emotions to the (imagined) malice of other people. The more you hurt, the more malicious they are. Everybody does that, but you do it in an exaggerated way.” Yes, that pinpoints it exactly. It has to do with tremendous feelings of inferiority from the past. The template for this was laid in Goldenbridge, and it forever replays the same old “you will never amount to anything” spiel that was perpetually flung at child inmates. The lack of feeling validated eternally encompasses my very being.

    I know that I’ve been immensely scarred by an excruciatingly painful childhood spent in a Victorian child prison refuge. All my memories are of so much torturous acts.

    For example: I have vivid recollections of sumptuous scraps of Marietta biscuits, soldier crusts of toast, and particles of cake from St. Ita’s staff table, that had been placed in an aluminium sieve by minor staff, and each day methodically flung out of the corridor window that faced directly into the sunless prison yard ground. Child inmates flung themselves to the ground and fiercely grabbed at the luscious leavings. The ‘scraps’ were as regular as clockwork, so inmates eagerly awaited them, as the scraps by the inmates had been considered as rare sumptuous food items. Inmates, who never had toast to eat, would gobble down the black burnt bits, as if they were expensive oysters. Dog-fights ensued. Some inmates snatched not only the gorgeous tasty scraps, but also the hair on the heads – the little that was left, anyway, – after-all getting heads shorn and cut short was the norm – of some inmates, and locked themselves into each other for a half an hour or so, at any given time, as they were so enraged at each other for getting the best scraps. The staff thought theses scenarios were hilarious. They thrived on inmates being vicious towards each other.

    I also remember on rare occasions such as feast-days when child inmates sitting on hard benches in the REC (euphemistically known as “the wreck” because of the savage beatings that regularly occurred there by staff members when the nuns were up praying in the convent) were given two or three bulls-eye sweets. The children were forced to put index finger on lips for long durations. If a dislike by a staff member to a particular child occurred, with the shiny silver mirrored can with delicate handle the nasty staff member would bypass that child, and the one sitting next to it got extra sweets, to rub it in even more. The horrible staff member – hugging the can – would then glide along the benches with a smirk on her face. It not only caused terrible tension in the child who was left sweet-less but also to the rest of the onlookers who wondered whether they were going to suffer the same ignominious despicable fate. Shunning innocent children was normal behaviour.

    The vivid cruel Goldenbridge childhood memories that I relate to, where horrendous cruelty and shunning were ever present natural occurrences, still dreadfully haunt me. They come very strongly into play on a regular basis. It takes very little for them to be sparked off. The holding back – and not reacting to them is sometimes a full-time job.

    Shunning Part 2 Scrawny pigeon

    I remember years ago during lunch-hour from my job at the specialised Metallurgical library at Carton House Terrace in London– strolling around nearby St. James’ Park. I stood for a long while watching the pigeons being fed by various people, including myself. There was one particular scrawny pigeon who, instead of vying for the nuts and the like that were strewn on the ground, had decided to constantly chase the other birds away, so that they wouldn’t get all the rich pickings. Alas, the worn out scraggy pigeon was doing itself a terrible injustice. Indeed, it was its own worst enemy, because, if it had any wit at all it would have joined in gathering the nuts, instead of defeating the object by daftly chasing away the other pigeons, who were clearly benefitting greatly from the bird feed. However, I could empathise with the scrawny pigeon so much, as it clearly had no insight. If it had it would have been as self-seeking and cunning as the rest of the pigeons and thought of itself in a flawless commonsensical way. The scrawny pigeon’s actions reminded me of all the negative energy I have wasted going after assumed shunning sources. It’s uninspiring to think of all the negative energy that’s harboured in the brain, with all the good energy gone to waste. Just like the klutzy pigeon too it’s chasing away at the wrong sources.

    When I returned to Ireland from Birmingham in the mid-eighties I resided in Ballyjamesduff, Co Cavan. It is a small rural town in the province of Ulster, which now comprises fewer than 2,000 inhabitants. Its claim to fame is Father Brendan Smyth, who was a notorious paedophile – who in the early nineties almost brought the Irish government to its knees because of the child abuse scandals. In this community I experienced shunning on a gargantuan scale by a certain section of that close-knit society. I put the shunning down to not having had any proper place, or family status, and due to being friendly with an unmarried mother, who by large swathes of the community was forever shunned. Some townies would cross the other side of the main street to avoid her. I saw it on so many occasions and was absolutely infuriated with their low-down ignorant behaviour. Think fallen woman! She had become hardened to all the hostility she grew up with in the town and was aware of the two-faced shenanigans of some specific insular folk. The same community that mostly never spoke out about alleged heinous crimes of the priest for fear of offending the religious. The hypocrisy knew no bounds.

    Here’s an example of the shunning of a pregnant young woman in Granard – not very far from Ballyjamesduff – and the dire consequences that unfolded because of having lived in a town that shunned girls and women who bore children out-of-wedlock.

    For there before the two lads lay the half-naked figure of fifteen years of age Ann Lovett, whimpering in shock and pain, gritting her teeth through tears, delirious and mumbling. Beside Ann, in a pool of blood, lay her stillborn baby boy who she had just delivered, alone and unaided, there, below the statue of the Virgin. Beside the dead child lay its placenta severed from Ann’s body by a pair of scissors she had carried around in her school bag for several weeks now, in preparation for this very event.

    Read more: A History of Sexuality In Ireland [2]: The Nineteen Eighties

    I also lived in a bed-sit and was frowned upon by snootier elements of the town. They were wont to steer clear of those less fortunate. Survival of the fittest! The things as they were must always be maintained to keep their superior status – one mustn’t let one’s self be contaminated by the mere riff-raff who wandered out of nowhere into town, and even worse still, a returning emigrant. I was “a blow-in.” In small towns everyone must know everyone else’s business. They have to know one’s intergenerational antecedents. My Goldenbridge institutional past was a well-kept secret. I had never spoken to a sinner in my entire life about my childhood. In fact, I had spent my entire time in England concocting stories about a family that never existed. I created them to suit the occasion. A lot of survivors of industrial “schools” would know exactly what I’m talking about here, as they would have resorted to similar survival tactics. I was completely unaware of the trap I was falling into upon deciding to live in a wee town in “the valley of the squinting windows.” My mother and her husband had lived three miles away in the country, so I fell naturally into that situation. Besides, I never would have dreamt of going to live in Dublin, as I was actually afraid of any association connected to Goldenbridge. It actually took me ten years to come to terms with facing Dublin. To this day I still cannot go back to the industrial “school” area. I thought I was safe in a small town, but no, not at all. The opposite.

    There was a particular incident where I went to an audition to join The Frolics Musical Society. A whole group of people who were known to me by sight was in full conversation on my arrival to the audition. There was suddenly utter silence when I entered the room. One person even got up from her seat to move away from me, when I sat down in the chair beside her. I was so mortified that I quietly went into the loo and disappeared. I know that I was in a bad place with respect of familial problems, and it might have shown in my demeanour. I thought that by entering into a hobby that I was very interested in, that it would bring me out of myself, and help me to get back on my feet. I was gobsmacked, as the amount of courage it took me to even contemplate on going there, knowing that a lot of them would not even bid me the time of day on the street was devastating to the psyche. I just didn’t have the emotional skills to turn it around and change things, as such emotional energy had until then been drained because of having to continually cover up about my past.

    Related: Ballyjamesduff Co.Cavan Revisited

    Shunning Part 3

    To this day I carry the residue of shame that stems from shunning that was relentlessly piled on me by all as a child in Goldenbridge. I get paranoid thinking that parts of the blogosphere that I frequent are out to shun me, in the same way that happened to me in Goldenbridge. I become convinced that if bloggers don’t interact with me personally, well, it certainly has to do with me not being intellectually good enough for their Interwebs presence.

    Children in Goldenbridge industrial “school” should not have been shunned, as they had to already withstand being shunned by their mere incarceration. It should have been the practice of caregivers to embrace them and not to have continually sent them to Coventry. They suffered enough punishment.

    I hold very strong views on shunning because of my past institutional upbringing and a whole young life of feeling shunned by the world. So I feel fit to talk about the negative consequences of this dastardly practice that is so common with religious. I know too of many religious people themselves who were on the receiving end of shunning when they decided in the past to leave religious life. They had given their lives to God and in one fell swoop because they started to disbelieve were cast asunder and shunned for the rest of their lives. They had to face an alien world all on their own without support from the religious. Yet, they’d previously devoted their entire lives to religious life and given up everything. Eaten bread is soon forgotten. There was also a recent case of an elderly priest, Father Bob, in Australia, who was cast aside and shunned by the church and asked to leave his dwellings because he spoke out on child sex abuse issues.

    The religious from all persuasions have a lot to answer for the way that they shun children and adults alike. The religious who practice shunning should have not messed around with the delicate nature of human beings. They had no right to separate children and adults from their loved ones. The legacy of separating children from their parents and denying the former any knowledge of their familial backgrounds has specifically done irreversible damage to those sent into the industrial school system in the past inIreland. The nuns were more concerned about their own image that they denied children the love of their parents.

    There was one particular incident of Goldenbridge twins, who were denied knowing who their family was by a nun because the nuns did not want disgrace blighting the good image of the Mercy order. It transpired that the head-honcho nun was a friend of two aunties belonging to the twins, as both of the former were also Sisters of Mercy. The head-honcho denied the twins the right to know their mother because of shame attached to a sister of the aunties because of having had the twins out-of-wedlock. For fifty years the nun in charge flatly refused to tell the twins anything about themselves, despite the constant pleading and suffering. It was only revealed when the nun was threatened by someone – with the interest of the twins at heart – with legal action. This occurred at the outset of the commission to inquire into child institutional abuse. What a despicable act.

    Shunning Conclusion

    As I pointed out at the outset, my personal experiences vis-à-vis shunning harks back to my long childhood incarceration years at Goldenbridge. I know that I must be extra mindful not to blame the world out there because of the tremendously damaging wrongdoing by a society that was far too closed-minded and ignorant to care about the impressive fragile minds of children. I soaked up the shunning. I soaked up the rejection. I soaked up the harshness of my surroundings, with not a moral compass to guide me along the way. I had no compass to steer me in the right direction, as do those who grow up in normal home-loving families mostly take for granted. I don’t know how to fix the distortions implanted in the brain at a time when the mind was like a sponge soaking and absorbing all. However, I do know that being cognisant of a propensity for confirmation bias towards the world at large, I must intermittently stretch my elastic wristband to alert me to the predilection I have for negative thinking and steer the mind into a more positive direction. The onus is on me not to be a target for shunning. As a child I was helpless to turn it around, but now as an older adult I must become aware that I DO have the power to turn it around.

    Ultimately to reiterate: I was very alert all those years ago to the scrawny pigeon’s immense deprivation, when it took a fit of squawking at all the other pigeons in sight – with the sole intention of deterring them from consuming the nuts that were laid out in sight. It was thoroughly absorbed in seeking out the wrong sources to the detriment of its own need. I should have noted and learned from that experience, and not have applied similar maladaptive principles throughout life. Nevertheless, there is no point in dwelling negatively on it, as hindsight is 20/20. On a more positive note to finish – I’m now at the critical thinking stage of adult literacy learning, and because of this, it is now incumbent on me to examine the unexamined with a fine tooth-comb. The past was yesterday, and it is gone forever. I can invoke it at will, though, and choose to dwell on the parts that cause me to shudder and the like, such as thinking that the world is out to get me and shun me. Or I can become as wise as the pigeons that got all the nourishing nuts and begin to thrive on expressing myself in a more encouraging way. It behooves me to learn that the encumbrance is no longer mine to bear.

  • Some tweets from Krauss v Tzortzis

    Apparently the big fuss happened after all, even though we were told that the organizers had agreed that there would be no segregated seating. Apparently Krauss had to make a fuss to make that concession a reality.

    bigdbd2bd3bd4

  • It was about Reddit

    There’s an event this weekend, called SXSW, at which there was a panel on Reddit. It was somewhat fraught, apparently.

    By the end of the first hot-ticket panel at SXSWi, things had gotten tense. The panel was made up of Slate‘s Farhad Manjoo, Gawker‘s Adrian Chen and Rebecca Watson of Skepchick. It was about Reddit.

    The discussion of the site was largely critical — over the past year, the site has wrestled with its first real identity crisis, induced in large part by Chen’s outing of ViolentAcrez, who moderated, among other subreddits, a section called “jailbait.”

    The concerns raised by the Violentacrez controversy were real and worthwhile: the value and pitfalls of anonymity, the overbearing abundance of white male voices on the site, the limits of free speech on the internet. The panel, perhaps predictably, tracked along those lines. Attendees — many avid Reddit users — were not happy.

    That sounds familiar.

    A guy voiced some unhappy from the floor. Check him out.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nozkilj7bhE

    He reads some droning unhappy from his phone and Rebecca breaks in to ask a question, and he lets her ask a question for a few seconds but then resumes his droning unhappy from his phone while Rebecca is still talking, so they compete for a few seconds and then she gives up, and he drones and drones – and Rebecca breaks in to say, “I’m sorry, I’m actually finding this really weird and a little rude.”

    Yes.

    Look, questions to speakers and panels are supposed to be questions, not speeches. This is well known. If a questioner makes too much of a speech people in the audience start calling “what’s your question?!” Using a question opportunity to give a speech is really bad manners. The guy with the phone was giving a damn speech. Rebecca interrupted him, but he was giving a damn speech; she attempted to make it a more interesting dialogue, and he decided to simply talk over her and ignore her. But she was on the panel. Yes, his droning was both weird and rude.

    That sounds familiar.

  • No VAW Act for you

    The US Conference of Catholic Bishops covers itself with glory again by finding stupid pettifogging reactionary reasons to refuse (officially, publicly, in a statemently) to support the Violence Against Women Act. Anything to be conspicuous, eh guys?

    The chairmen of four committees and one subcommittee of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) issued a joint statement to voice their concerns on the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013, passed recently by the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate. These concerns, as the bishops state, prevented the USCCB from supporting this version of the act.

    Aw. Concerned, are you? Poor things. Tell us all about it.

    “All persons must be protected from violence, but codifying the classifications ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘gender identity’ as contained in in S. 47 is problematic,” they wrote. “These two classifications are unnecessary to establish the just protections due to all persons. They undermine the meaning and importance of sexual difference. They are unjustly exploited for purposes of marriage redefinition, and marriage is the only institution that unites a man and a woman with each other and with any children born from their union.”

    Oh get over it. Meanings change, importance changes, definitions change, institutions change. Get over it. A woman and a man can still marry, still unite, still have children. You don’t need to issue statements and draw attention to yourselves just because other kinds of couples can also do that. You don’t need to police sexual difference, either. You’re not in charge of everything. Just get over it.

    The bishops also expressed their concerns about the exclusion of conscience protections from the bill as passed, which would protect the conscience rights of faith-based service providers that assist victims of human trafficking.

    Meaning, the “conscience rights” of theocratic pests who want to stop people using contraception and abortion. They want a protected right to interfere with the rights of other people.

     

  • A large crowd from a nearby mosque

    What’s new in Pakistan? Oh, the usual – a mob enraged over some alleged “blasphemy” torches dozens of houses in a neighborhood of Lahore. Rageboys just wanna have fun.

    The mob attacked the houses in Joseph Colony in Badami Bagh police precincts in the provincial capital following allegations of blasphemy against a Christian man. The man was booked under Section 295-C of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC).

    It appeared that the man had been falsely accused of blasphemy but the police was forced to register a case to placate the mob, a local police official said.

    Allah is wise, merciful.

    Police officer Multan Khan said the incident started Friday when a young Muslim man accused the Christian man of committing blasphemy.

    A large crowd from a nearby mosque went to the Christian man’s home on Friday night and Khan said police took the man into custody to try to pacify the crowd.

    Fearing for their safety, hundreds of Christian families fled the area overnight.

    Khan said the mob returned on Saturday and began ransacking Christian homes and setting them on fire.

    Fridays are a scary time in Islamist countries. It doesn’t even do any good to stay home, because the ragemob will just torch it with you in it.