‘Social pedagogy’ has its roots in anthroposophy, which holds that children – and adults with learning and developmental disabilities – exist partly in the spirit world.
Author: Ophelia Benson
-
Don’t protest the thing you are protesting
There was an extraordinary discussion on the Rally for Free Expression Facebook page a couple of days ago. The rally, of course, is a project of One Law for All and Maryam. The discussion started when a KCL student asked, “Whose idea was it to use a Jesus and Mo picture to advertise this rally?” and when told it was One Law for All’s, said, “Bad move. Very bad move.”
Uh. Seriously? But that was the whole point – to say that Jesus and Mo is not the kind of thing that should be banned or bullied into silence or concealment.
Maryam replied, sardonically,
I decided to use it. I couldn’t find a photo of us kneeling down in submission and agreeing not to offend but that also showed a demand for free expression. I guess that’s because it doesn’t exist… Jesus and Mo is the point.
Along with a post on the subject.
But another student who thought it was a bad move entered the fray –
It was an idiotic, attention seeking, and potentially dangerous decision. The point of this rally is free speech. The point of this rally is not to inflame. The original publishing of the cartoons was satirical, funny and definitely not an attempt to offend, whereas this is either an attempt to offend or sheer idiocy. If the leaflets get onto campuses then it certainly won’t help Athiest societies’ causes, with the union and with fellow students. There’s no issue with saying, at the rally, “ooh look, this isn’t offensive at all, but some people got offended and tried to stop this being published” and showing the pictures, but distributing the pictures on leaflets in this fashion is, as [student #1] said, a very bad move.
So the rally shouldn’t advertise the rally with the picture that is the very issue the rally is about. So if there’s a violent racist incident and people call a rally to protest racist violence, the rally shouldn’t be advertised with photographs of the violent racist incident? War protests shouldn’t mention The War? Occupy Wall Street shouldn’t mention Wall Street?
It’s mind-boggling.
From Maryam’s post:
Some atheists are not happy with One Law for All’s use of the Jesus and Mo cartoon on leaflets to promote the 11 February Day in defence of free expression. They feel that since the Jesus and Mo cartoons have been deemed offensive, it is best not to use them.
But that’s the whole point isn’t it?
We’re rallying in order to say that the right to offend is part of free expression. No one needs to rally for inoffensive speech, do they?
And if I hear one more hypothetical on why we shouldn’t offend if we can avoid it, I might just scream. The latest one: ‘If a Muslim comes to your house you will not plaster the Jesus and Mo cartoon all over to offend them on purpose now will you?’
No, but I won’t hide them, either!
Tragic failure of education
Via the LSESU ASH Facebook page and later via Alex Gabriel, a poster advertising an event put on by the LSE Socialist Worker Student Society. It reads:
Religious discrimination is irrefutably on the rise at LSE. Both the Atheist Society’s efforts to publish inflammatory “satirical” cartoons in a deliberate attempt to offend Muslims, and the ‘Nazi themed’ drinking games serve to highlight a festering undercurrent of racism.
What does really lie behind the claim that religious communities cannot be the target of racists?
Is atheism the road to social progress?
Why do Marxists defend religion?
That’s illiterate. “Religious discrimination” is somehow related to Nazism, and then it turns out to be a matter of racism, but then whoops it’s back to religion again – and all the wheels fall off with a resounding clatter.
But more to the point, notice the vicious language about the LSE ASH. Note the “efforts to publish” when the site of “publication” was the group’s Facebook page. Note the malevolent paranoia of “inflammatory.” Note above all the (one could say “inflammatory”) accusation that that was a “deliberate attempt to offend Muslims.” Note, in short, the frothing hatred of secularism, free speech and discussion, and failure to grovel before religious taboos.
In the next paragraph, note the “religious communities,” which sweeps all Muslims into the group “invariably outraged by even the most anodyne criticism of or jokes about their religion.”
Note it all, and hope they learn to think better soon.
Ridiculous dispute over Koran exhibition
Kirklees Muslim Action Committee says Ahmadiyya Muslim Association has “no right to put on an exhibition about the Qur’an” because blah blah blah.
“Open to all” does not mean “pleasing to all”
The LSESU Atheist, Secularist and Humanist Society issued a statement yesterday.
It starts with thanks for support from various groups (including One Law for All) and a chronology of the exciting events of the last couple of weeks, the first being an invitation from the SU to come in for a chat.
Friday 20th
In the meeting, the LSESU advanced that we were not providing a safe space for Muslim students to interact, as the pictures on our Facebook page were offending Muslims.
But again – why is an Atheist, Secularist and Humanist Society expected to provide a safe space for Muslim students to interact? Why is that an issue? Are all student societies expected to provide a safe space for their own opposites to interact? Wouldn’t such an expectation render all student societies utterly meaningless and void? Or is it only the Atheist, Secularist and Humanist Society that is expected to do that? But in that case…why the fuck?
On the 25th the SU clarified this point somewhat:
When activity comes under the banner of the Student’s Union it should be open to all members…….. The images which are posted there present a clear barrier to entry for a large number of students at LSE……. the cartoons has caused not only reflects negatively on the LSE SU brand but more importantly has caused significance offence to our members.
So there we have the fundamental confusion: the confusion of being open with having no “barriers” when barriers are understood as “anything some students might dislike.” The activity is open to all members, but that doesn’t require it to be attractive to all members. At that rate there could be no musical society, because some people dislike music; there could be no socialist society, because socialism would “present a clear barrier” to free-market libertarians; there could be no feminist society, for reasons which there’s no need to spell out.
ASH made the same point crisply in response to the SU:
Disagreeing and even being offended by some of the contents of a social space do not represent a barrier to entry.
It must be dispiriting to be at university with people who have to be told that.
January 30th
We asked the SU to “cite the relevant literature that shows conclusively that “Muslim students cannot look at pictures of the prophet Muhammad”.” No answers received.
The LSESU Socialist Workers Society posted the posters on campus that included the following statement:
“The Atheist Society’s efforts to publish inflammatory “satirical” cartoons in a deliberate attempt to offend Muslims serve to highlight a festering undercurrent of racism.”
Budding George Galloways, all of them.
…we have now changed the name of the Facebook group back to “LSESU Atheist, Secularist and Humanist Society”.
During the two weeks of the on-going investigation, the LSESU has not been able to justify their request to remove the ‘Jesus and Mo’ cartoons from our website and their request to change the name of our Facebook group with reference to the LSESU constitution or bye-laws.
The SU answered our letter, but was still unable to state explicitly the effective and binding bye-laws on which their request has been based. Therefore, we are back to our old name, and will stay with our name until the SU can prove to us that we are in violation of any of their regulations or bye-laws.
We await further developments.
Unhand that banker, you filthy cad
Brendan O’Neill is hilarious, in an irritating way. His one trick is Defending the Indefensible. The only surprise he offers is what obviously bad exploitative ruthless item or person he can next find to claim as a victim of the mob.
This week it’s bankers. Yes bankers, who are so hard done by, being allowed to trash the global economy for the sake of stuffing their own wallets and then allowed to keep their wallet-stuffing jobs and continue getting gigantic bonuses to reward them for trashing the global economy in order to stuff their own wallets. Naturally they need defending by the fearless non-conformist quirky gang at Spiked.
The mad pursuit of Fred Goodwin and his ill-gotten knighthood confirms that bankers are the new paedophiles. Bank bosses are to posh commentators what paedos were to hacks at the News of the World – wicked creatures one can rail against in order to feel puffed-up and Good.
Pffffffff. One could just as easily say the same of O’Neill. He doesn’t know that that’s why people “rail against” Fred Goodwin, any more than I know that he writes this kind of coat-trailing shite in order to feel clever and Savvy.
Of course, the difference between the old tabloid wars against paedos and the current moralistic hounding of bankers is that the latter has been sanctioned by the influential chattering classes, giving it a reach and clout the News of the World‘s crusade against paedos never achieved.
Brilliant; he sounds like Terry Eagleton heaping scorn on “Islington man” from whatever blighted slum he would live in if only he hadn’t become so prosperous over the years.
There’s lots more of this formulaic bullshit; read it all if you like that kind of thing.
Why a book about censorship?
The Economist talked to Nick Cohen about his new book, aptly titled You Can’t Read This Book.
First question was
What made you want to write a book about censorship?
Now what do you suppose he said.
Firstly, it was watching a Russian oligarch with a criminal record using the libel law in Britain to silence all newspapers that wrote articles about him. Secondly, a great feminist writer, Ophelia Benson, co-wrote a book called “Does God Hate Women?” which was denounced overwhelmingly by the liberal press in Britain, including the paper I write for, the Observer. So once you start with an idea, the logic of the book then takes over.
That’s not bad. Almost worth having one’s book overwhelmingly denounced by the liberal press.
It was you know. I went over it all at the time, naturally, but not everyone who is reading now was reading then, so just by way of a reminder or a quick background – that’s exactly what happened. The Independent denounced it, the Observer denounced it, the Guardian’s ‘Comment is Free’ denounced it. BBC 3′s Night Waves invited not one but two defenders of religion to tell me how wrong we were and how feminist Islam and Catholicism are. One of the best and least mendacious reviews the book got was in – wait for it – the Church Times. Seriously.
Taslima’s readers and fans
Taslima Nasreen has a lot of tweets about the cancellation of (or move outside of) her book launch in Kolkata. News media have been quoting her tweets, so I might as well do a few too. (How nice it would be if she had a blog.) She is getting plenty of support. The bullies don’t have a monopoly, by any means.
Wow! Veiled girls buying & reading my books. I hope they would soon remove their veils & start living w dignity.
Dhaka: Eminent writer Syed Abul Maksud holds Taslima Nasreen’s autobigraphy books ‘Nirbasan’ at Ekushe Boimela.
One from twelve hours ago:
Dhaka Book Fair in Muslim Majority Bangladesh now successfully launched my book. Kolkata Book Fair in Muslim minority India could not.
The Economist talks to Nick Cohen
Nick mentions Does God Hate Women?
Philip Kitcher on Derek Parfit on what matters
Asking how we might make sense of ethical truth and ethical knowledge can be a valuable initial step toward discovering what ought to be done or what is worth cherishing.
More publications that will uphold love for truth
Now it’s Taslima Nasreen’s turn.
Taslima Nasreen has faced protests at the launch of her latest memoir, with an event at the Calcutta Book Fair cancelled. Ms Nasreen is not at the event, and tweeted that her publisher was forced to launch the book outside the hall.
It would be nice if she had a blog. Twitter is all very well, but a blog gives a person room to move. I do think Taslima Nasreen should have a blog.
The protest comes in the wake of an intensified debate over artistic free speech in India. UK writer Sir Salman Rushdie recently had to abandon plans to attend a literary festival in Jaipur amid security concerns. On Sunday an artist was assaulted in a gallery in Delhi, where he is exhibiting a number of nude paintings.
And don’t forget Aseem Trivedi.
Ms Nasreen was launching Nirbasan (Exile), the latest instalment of her memoirs that gives an account of her flight from Calcutta in 2007-08…Ms Nasreen has written dozens of books of poetry, essays, novels and short stories in her native Bengali language, mostly in exile. Her most controversial book, Lajja (Shame), was banned in Bangladesh and she fled after Muslim extremists called for her death. The publisher of the latest instalment, Shibani Mukherji, told the Press Trust of India it was “determined to go ahead with more publications that will uphold values, love for truth and social progress”.
Props to Shibani Mukherji!
Now if only Taslima Nasreen had a blog…
Treason and offending
How not to understand free speech.
The case of a cartoonist charged with treason and offending India’s national sentiments reflects a growing debate over what constitutes freedom of expression in India. His accusers argue that while it is permissible to make fun of politicians, you cannot make fun of the state.
That’s how, right there. No no no, that’s entirely wrong. Yes you can make fun of the state. The state and the church or mosque are right at the top of the list of things you must be able to make fun of in order to have free speech at all. If free speech applies just to things that don’t matter, then it’s not free.
Aseem Trivedi, a 25-year-old political cartoonist, was charged with treason and insulting the Indian national emblems, according to local news reports and CPJ interviews…
Trivedi, a freelancer from the central state of Uttar Pradesh, was inspired by the well-known social activist Anna Hazare‘s fight against corruption and graft. Trivedi drew cartoons criticizing the Indian government, some of which were exhibited while Hazare was fasting in Mumbai in December.
Back in Mumbai, Trivedi faces another legal attack. There, lawyer R.P. Pandey has filed his own complaint, alleging that the cartoons are “defamatory and derogatory” and requesting “strict legal action,” according to news reports. While Mumbai police have yet to file charges, the complaint has had repercussions: Big Rock, a domain name registrar, suspended Trivedi’s website, www.cartoonistsagainstcorruption.com, citing the criminal complaint, The Times of India reported.
Speaking to CPJ from Mumbai, Pandey said that while parodying politicians was a legitimate pursuit, mocking national institutions like the Indian Parliament and national symbols was “completely unacceptable.”
No no no. You can mock institutions. Mocking institutions is a very important component of free speech.
Certainly, the blocking of Trivedi’s website has caused a sense of disquiet. Sudhir Tailang, a well-known political cartoonist based in Delhi, says, “The very essence of cartoons are their anti-establishment note. Take away that and you take away dissent.”
Exactly. Do better, India.
Richard, Nick, Salman, Ayaan
Richard Dawkins has a response to “Froborr.”
Ok I’m lying, he doesn’t really, but it might as well be. Plus it’s a response to all the “oh won’t you please think of the poor fragile believers?” wails that keep being wailed.
Actually he’s talking specifically about the Jaipur Festival (where he was one of the speakers) and Salman Rushdie and Nick Cohen’s new book – but he’s also talking generally, as is only natural, since all of those items have wide implications.
I have just returned from the Jaipur Literary Festival, infamous for the recent reprise of the 1989 threats against Sir Salman Rushdie by Muslims the world over, lamentably applauded by leading churchmen, politicians, historians and otherwise liberal journalists. Coincidentally, I am reading You Can’t Read this Book, Nick Cohen’s brilliant broadside against ‘censorship in an age of freedom’.
I’ve already read Nick’s book, because I read it as it was being written. I’ll be reading it again though. Anyway the point is, the subject of Nick’s book keeps being re-enacted, more absurdly and invasively and threateningly all the time.
Richard said at Jaipur:
Our whole society is soft on religion. The assumption is remarkably widespread that religious sensitivities are somehow especially deserving of consideration – a consideration not accorded to ordinary prejudice. . . I admit to being offended by Father Christmas, ‘Baby Jesus’, and Rudolf the Red Nosed Reindeer, but if I tried to act on these prejudices I’d quite rightly be held accountable. I’d be challenged to justify myself. But let somebody’s religion be offended and it’s another matter entirely. Not only do the affronted themselves kick up an almighty fuss; they are abetted and encouraged by influential figures from other religions and the liberal establishment. Far from being challenged to justify their beliefs like anybody else, the religious are granted sanctuary in a sort of intellectual no go area.
Froborr take a bow.
Richard quotes Nick on the new atheists:
The new atheists thought that the best argument against Islamist terror, or Christian fundamentalism, or Hindu or Jewish nationalism, was to say bluntly that there is no God, and we should grow up. Fear of religious violence also drove the backlash against atheism from those who felt that appeasement of psychopathic believers was the safest policy; that if we were nice to them, perhaps they would calm down. Prim mainstream commentators decried the insensitivity and downright rudeness with which the new atheists treated the religious. The complaints boiled down to a simple and piteous cry: “Why can’t you stop upsetting them?”
The answer is simple. If the criterion for what is allowable in public discourse becomes “that which will not upset anyone” then public discourse will be a vast desert of nothingness. We can’t have thought or inspiration or development or change without the risk of upsetting some people. “Not upsetting” is simply the wrong criterion for permissible discourse.
Richard Dawkins on reading Nick Cohen after Jaipur
Not only do the affronted themselves kick up an almighty fuss; they are abetted and encouraged by influential figures from other religions and the liberal establishment.
Protests mar Taslima Nasreen book launch in Calcutta
Nasreen has faced protests at the launch of her latest memoir, with an event at the Calcutta Book Fair cancelled.
Indian cartoonist charged with treason for mocking the state
His accusers argue that while it is permissible to make fun of politicians, you cannot make fun of the state.
Why the Theodosian Code is so hysterically bad
Skeptic lawyer went to a really nice reception last night at the Scottish Parliament building, which is apparently almost as ugly as the Experience Music Project here in Seattle, and in much the same style –
…a fellow lawyer suggested that it looked like someone had eaten a giant jigsaw and then thrown up on the Old Town.
Behold the EMP:
Very much as if someone had thrown up a huge jigsaw.
But that’s not the real subject. The real subject is that reception; what a jolly occasion it sounds.
it was a reception for equal marriage (same sex marriage) held at Holyrood and co-sponsored by all four parties currently represented in the parliament.
To quote from the linked article in the Scotsman:
Labour’s Johann Lamont, Ruth Davidson of the Conservatives, Willie Rennie of the Lib Dems and the Greens’ Patrick Harvie signed a pledge expressing their backing for homosexual weddings.
The four opposition leaders signed a declaration saying that they would “campaign to beat the ban on same sex marriage”.
At an event in the Scottish Parliament organised by the Equality Network, they cut a wedding cake to symbolise their support for a change in the law. The cake-cutting ceremony was carried out before MSPs of all parties attended an evening reception co-sponsored by the openly gay SNP MSP Joe Fitzpatrick.
That makes me very wistful. Such an event couldn’t possibly happen here, in the land of paleolithic views married to relentless pandering.
It pissed off the right people, too. Guess who got all scowly.
Last night John Deighan, parliamentary officer for the Catholic Church in Scotland, said: “It is disappointing that party leaders have been so cavalier in joining the bandwagon for redefining marriage. We deserve a more reflective approach from those in a position of political leadership.
“Marriage is essentially linked with recognising and supporting the roles of mother and father. There is a lack of real tolerance when that view is sweepingly likened to a form of discrimination or bigotry. This is, of course, an attempt to win a political position by intimidation rather than by coherence of argument.”
Disgusting as always – the bullying Catholic church accusing elected politicians of intimidation.
But the party leaders were unrepentant, indicating their strong support for changing the law.
Oh that makes me so wistful. Here they would be falling all over themselves to apologize and mollify and attempt a compromise.
Skeptic lawyer has some wonderful commentary on Roman law and the Theodosian code.
Apparently, the reason the Theodosian Code is so hysterically bad is because it wasn’t drafted by lawyers, but by various Christian mates of the emperor. The Roman legal profession kept its paganism with great tenacity, only capitulating when — after repeated professional harassment — they were all threatened with the loss of their practicing certificates (ius respondendii) if they failed to convert. At the same time, women were driven from the Bar and shortly thereafter, the Greek schools of philosophy were closed.
In other words, the conservative Christian attempt to define marriage so that gays and lesbians can’t use it is intimately linked to misogyny and hostility to intellectual freedom. That’s worth keeping in mind.
That’s just a snippet; read it all.
This is really true
Jesus took a leaf from Jefferson’s book and did a condensed Koran.
Mo said “sheet.” That’s offensive!
http://www.jesusandmo.net/2012/02/01/dross/
Skeptic lawyer on equal marriage in Scotland
Labour’s Johann Lamont, Ruth Davidson of the Conservatives, Willie Rennie of the Lib Dems and the Greens’ Patrick Harvie signed a pledge expressing their backing for gay marriage.
The ethics of offence at LSE
We firmly believe that the LSESU has no right to ban freedom of expression, and if anything is deserving of ridicule, satire, and contempt religion is a sure candidate.