ABC asked him if in hindsight he thought the tactics went too far. ‘I don’t,’ Cheney said cheerfully.
Author: Ophelia Benson
-
The Cost of Mbeki’s ‘Beliefs’ About HIV
Had South Africa’s government provided the appropriate drugs, it would have prevented 365,000 premature deaths.
-
HRW on the Kiwanja Massacre
Survivors could only run to the UN base half a mile away and cluster outside the fence for protection.
-
HRW Urges Action on Reforms for Migrant Women
Governments in the Middle East should act quickly to fulfill promises to protect migrant women’s rights.
-
Call for End to Sharia Courts
A new report showing that Muslim women are discriminated against and
encounter gross bias when they subject themselves to Sharia adjudications
was welcomed today by The One Law for
All Campaign, which is supported by a variety of organisations and
individuals.The campaign’s spokesperson Maryam Namazie said: ‘This research reinforces
our own findings that Sharia Councils and Muslim Arbitration Tribunals are
discriminatory and unfair. However, the solution to the miscarriages of
justice is not the vetting of Imams coming to the UK as the report has
recommended but an end to the use and implementation of Sharia law and
religious-based tribunals.’ She added: ‘At present these Sharia-based bodies
are growing and appear to have some sort of official backing. But they are
leading to gross injustices among women who are often unaware of their
rights under Britain’s legal system.’This perspective was reiterated in the One Law for All Campaign’s launch on
December 10, 2008 in the House of Lords at which Maryam Namazie and campaign
supporters Gina Khan, Carla Revere, Ibn Warraq and Keith Porteous Wood
spoke; the meeting was chaired by Fariborz Pooya, head of the Iranian
Secular Society.Gina Khan, a secular Muslim, said: ‘Under British law we are treated as
equal and full human beings. Under the antiquated version of Sharia law that
Islamists peddle, we are discriminated against just because of our gender.
These Islamists use our plight by meddling in issues like forced marriages,
domestic violence and inheritance laws for their own political agenda. To
allow them to have any sort of control over the lives of Muslim women in
British communities will have dire consequences.’ She added: ‘Sharia courts
must be a pressing concern not just for Muslims but for all those living in
Britain. Anyone who believes in universal human rights needs to stand united
against the discrimination and oppression visited upon Muslim women.’Carla Revere, Chairperson of the Lawyers’ Secular Society, said: ‘Such
self-appointed, unregulated tribunals are gaining in strength; they
increasingly hold themselves up as courts with as much force as the law of
the land, but are not operating with the same controls and safeguards. They
appear to be operating in the area of family law and some even in criminal
matters, where they have no right to make binding decisions as they claim to
do. Even if the decisions were binding, UK courts do not uphold contractual
decisions that are contrary to UK law or public policy. We call on the
Government and legal establishment to stand up for the vulnerable and tackle
this significant and growing problem, rather than ignoring it.’Writer Ibn Warraq said: ‘Sharia does not accord equal rights to Muslim
women- in regards to marriage- she is not free to marry a non-Muslim, for
instance; in regards to divorce, custody of children, inheritance, the
choice of profession, and freedom to travel, or freedom to change her
religion. In other words, Great Britain in allowing Sharia courts has
contravened the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, and all the
other more legally binding United Nations’ Covenants on Discrimination and
the Rights of Women… Multiculturalism is turning communities against each
other, it is fundamentally divisive. We need to get back to the principles
of equality before the law, principles that so many people fought so hard to
achieve for so long.’Keith Porteous Wood, Executive Director of the National Secular Society,
said: ‘Sharia is becoming a growth industry in Britain, putting growing
pressure on vulnerable people in the Muslim community to use Sharia councils
and tribunals to resolve disputes and family matters, when they could use
the civil courts. Sharia law is not arrived at by the democratic process, is
not Human Rights compliant, and there is no right of appeal.’Writer Joan Smith who was unable to speak at the launch sent the following
message: ‘This campaign is very important because many people in this
country – including politicians – have yet to realise the isolation of many
Muslims, particularly women, from the wider society. Some of them are
already under intolerable pressure from their families, and the principle of
one law for everyone is a protection they desperately need. That’s why I
give this campaign my whole-hearted support.’To find out more or support the One Law for All Campaign against Sharia Law
in Britain visit One Law for All.You can also listen to Maryam Namazie’s debates with Sidiqqi, head of the
Muslim Arbitration Tribunal, on BBC 5 Live and with Muslim lawyer Aina Khan
on BBC Radio 4 Women’s Hour here.To listen to Gina Khan’s speech at the December 10, 2008 One Law for All
Campaign against Sharia law in Britain launch, click here.To listen to Maryam Namazie’s speech at the December 10, 2008 One Law for
All Campaign against Sharia law in Britain launch, click here.To listen to Carla Revere’s speech at the December 10, 2008 One Law for All
Campaign against Sharia law in Britain launch, click here.To listen to Ibn Warraq’s speech at the December 10, 2008 One Law for All
Campaign against Sharia law in Britain launch, click here.To listen to Keith Porteous Wood’s speech at the December 10, 2008 One Law
for All Campaign against Sharia law in Britain launch, click here.Some of the signatories to the Campaign
Nazanin Afshin-Jam, Coordinator, Stop Child Executions Campaign, Canada
Mina Ahadi, Spokesperson, Council of Ex-Muslims of Germany; Coordinator,
International Committee against Stoning, Köln, Germany
Sargul Ahmad, Activist, Women’s Liberation in Iraq, Canada
Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Writer, Washington, DC, USA
Mahin Alipour, Coordinator, Equal Rights Now – Organisation against Women’s
Discrimination in Iran, Stockholm, Sweden
Homa Arjomand, Coordinator, International Campaign against Sharia Courts in
Canada, Toronto, Canada
Farideh Arman, Coordinator, International Campaign in Defence of Women’s
Rights in Iran, Malmo, Sweden
Abdullah Asadi, Executive Director, International Federation of Iranian
Refugees, Sweden
Ophelia Benson, Editor, Butterflies and Wheels, USA
Susan Blackmore, Psychologist, UK
Nazanin Borumand, Never Forget Hatun Campaign against Honour Killings,
Germany
Roy Brown, Past President, International Humanist and Ethical Union, Geneva,
Switzerland
Ed Buckner, President, American Atheists, USA
Marino Busdachin, General Secretary, Unrepresented Nations and Peoples
Organization, Netherlands
Center for Inquiry, USA
Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain, UK
Council of Ex-Muslims of Germany, Germany
Council of Ex-Muslims of Scandinavia, Sweden
Caroline Cox, Peer, House of Lords, London, UK
Austin Dacey, Representative to the United Nations, Center for
Inquiry-International, USA
Shahla Daneshfar, Central Committee Member, Equal Rights Now – Organisation
against Women’s Discrimination in Iran, London, UK
Richard Dawkins, Scientist, Oxford, UK
Patty Debonitas, TV Producer, Third Camp against US Militarism and Islamic
Terrorism, London, UK
Deeyah, Singer and composer, USA
Nick Doody, Comedian, UK
Sonja Eggerickx, President, International Humanist and Ethical Union,
Belgium
Afshin Ellian, Professor, Leiden University Faculty of Law, Leiden,
Netherlands
Equal Rights Now – Organisation against Women’s Discrimination in Iran,
Sweden
European Humanist Federation, Belgium
Tarek Fatah, Author, Chasing a Mirage: The Tragic Illusion of an Islamic
State, Toronto, Canada
Caroline Fourest, Writer, France
Tahir Aslam Gora, Writer and journalist, Canada
AC Grayling, Writer and Philosopher, London, UK
Maria Hagberg, Chair, Network against Honour-Related Violence, Gothenburg,
Sweden
Johann Hari, Journalist, London, UK
Christopher Hitchens, Author, USA
Farshad Hoseini, Activist, International Campaign against Executions,
Netherlands
Khayal Ibrahim, Coordinator, Organization of Women’s Liberation in Iraq;
Arabic Anchor for Secular TV, Canada
International Committee against Executions, Netherlands
International Committee against Stoning, Germany
International Humanist and Ethical Union, UK
Iranian Secular Society, UK
Shakeb Isaar, Singer, Sweden
Maryam Jamel, Activist, Women’s Liberation in Iraq, Canada
Keyvan Javid, Director, New Channel TV, London, UK
Alan Johnson, Editor, Democratiya.com, Lancashire, UK
Mehul Kamdar, Former editor of The Modern Rationalist, USA
Naser Khader, Founder, Association of Democratic Muslims, Denmark
Hope Knutsson, Chair, Sidmennt, Icelandic Ethical Humanist Association,
Iceland
Hartmut Krauss, Editor, Hintergrund, Germany
LAIQUES – Région PACA, Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur, France
Stephen Law, Editor, Royal Institute of Philosophy journal, London, UK
Shiva Mahbobi, Producer, Against Discrimination TV Programme, London, UK
Houzan Mahmoud, Abroad Representative, Organisation of Women’s Freedom in
Iraq, London, UK
Doreen Massey, Peer, House of Lords, London, UK
Anthony McIntyre, Writer, Ireland
Caspar Melville, Editor, New Humanist magazine, London, UK
Bahar Milani, Activist, Children First Now, London, UK
Tauriq Moosa, Writer, Capetown, South Africa
Reza Moradi, Producer, Fitna Remade, London, UK
Douglas Murray, Director, Centre for Social Cohesion, London, UK
Taslima Nasrin, Writer and activist
National Secular Society, London, UK
Never Forget Hatun Campaign against Honour Killings, Germany
Samir Noory, Writer; Secular TV Manager, Canada
David Pollock, President, the European Humanist Federation, London, UK
Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan, Pakistan
Fahimeh Sadeghi, Coordinator, International Federation of Iranian
Refugees-Vancouver, Vancouver, Canada
Michael Schmidt-Salomon, Chief Executive Officer, Giordano Bruno Foundation,
Germany
Udo Schuklenk, Philosophy professor, Queen’s University, Canada
Sohaila Sharifi, Editor, Unveiled, London, UK
Issam Shukri, Head, Defense of Secularism and Civil Rights in Iraq; Central
Committee Secretary, Left Worker-communist Party of Iraq, Iraq
Bahram Soroush, Founding member, Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain, London,
UK
Peter Tatchell, Activist, London, UK
Hamid Taqvaee, Central Committee Secretary, Worker-communist Party of Iran
Union des Familles Laïques – section Arles-Istres, France
Union des Familles Laïques – section Marseille-Aix-en-Provence, France
Afsaneh Vahdat, Coordinator, Council of Ex-Muslims of Sweden, Stockholm,
Sweden
Marvin F. Zayed, President, International Committee to Protect Freethinkers,
Ottawa,CanadaFor more information, please contact Maryam Namazie, email:
onelawforall@gmail.com, telephone: 07719166731; website:
onelawforall.org.uk. -
Muslim Think Tank Finds Sharia Unfair to Women
‘I told them I had been forced and this was not Islamic, but they disagreed.’
-
Indonesia: Teacher Accused of ‘Blasphemy’
Accusation that a teacher ‘blasphemed’ Islam set off the torching of two churches, a health clinic, 67 homes.
-
Another Blasphemy Bust in Indonesia
Indonesian police booked cult leader Lia Aminuddin for ‘insulting’ Islam.
-
Nirmukta Offers a Plea for Rationality
The one thing we can all agree on: we cannot give up our secularism and limited freedoms in fear or in anger.
-
Kenan Malik on Internalising the Fatwa
The avoidance of ‘cultural pain’ is seen as more important than an ‘abstract’ right to freedom of expression.
-
As if increase of appetite had grown by what it fed on
Kenan Malik on the fatwa twenty years on.
It has now become widely accepted that we live in a multicultural world, and that in such a world it is important not to cause offence to other peoples and cultures. As the sociologist Tariq Modood has put it: ‘If people are to occupy the same political space without conflict, they mutually have to limit the extent to which they subject each others’ fundamental beliefs to criticism.’…Today, we have come to accept that books do indeed cause riots and that therefore we must be careful what books we write – or what cartoons we draw, or jokes we tell, or art we create.
Which creates an interesting and alarming closed circle of repression. We ‘must’ be careful what books we write and what things we say – therefore we become critical of the people and institutions who demand that we be careful what books we write and what things we say – but we must be careful what books we write and what things we say – so we can’t write books or say things about our criticisms of the people and institutions who demand that we be careful what books we write and what things we say – and so on. We’re caught in a sinister spiral in which liberals want to resist repression and repressors want to shut the liberals up, which makes the liberals want to resist even more, which makes the repressors want to shut them up even more…
I don’t see this working out well.
Today, all it takes for a publisher to run for cover is a letter from an outraged academic. In the 20 years between the publication of The Satanic Verses and the withdrawal of The Jewel of Medina, the fatwa has in effect become internalised.
See Sherry Spellberg went in the wrong direction here – she hooked up her outrage to the repressors instead of to the resistors. Bad move.
Today, many argue that whatever may appear to be right in principle, in practice one must appease religious and cultural sensibilities because such sensibilities are so deeply felt. The avoidance of ‘cultural pain’ is seen as more important than what is regarded as an abstract right to freedom of expression…The lesson of the Rushdie Affair that has never been learnt is that liberals have made their own monsters. It is the liberal fear of giving offence that has helped create a culture in which people take offence so easily.
Yeah. Let’s turn that around.
-
Quest for the Historical Jesus Begins Anew
Amherst, New York (December 08, 2008)-Scholars gathered this past weekend, December 5-7, in Amherst, New York, for the inaugural meeting of The Jesus Project in a renewed quest for the historical Jesus. The project, sponsored by the secular think tank Center for Inquiry and its Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion (CSER), is an effort by historians, biblical scholars, and theologians to determine what can be reliably recovered about the historical figure of Jesus, his life, his teachings, and his activities, utilizing the highest standards of scientific and scholarly objectivity.
An earlier inquiry, “The Jesus Seminar,” founded by Professor Robert Funk in 1985, concerned itself primarily with the sayings attributed to Jesus in the Gospels and related sources. Dr. R. Joseph Hoffmann, chair of the Project and the Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion, said that the “The Jesus Seminar had difficulty separating itself from the faith commitments of its members. Its agenda was not exclusively, but in large measure theologically driven. Its conclusions and methods raised more questions than they answered.”
The project has drawn together a diverse and rich group of scholars, including, among others Gerd Lüdemann, Paul Kurtz, Robert Price, James Tabor, Robert Eisenman, David Trobisch, Bruce Chilton, Dennis MacDonald, and R. Joseph Hoffmann.
At the session this past weekend, participants agreed that a rigorous scientific inquiry was needed, and that the Project would be committed to a position of neutrality towards the sources used as “evidence” for the Jesus tradition. Participants represent a wide variety of perspectives, ranging from Tabor’s argument that there is substantial evidence that the tomb of the family of Jesus has been located, to the view that the evidence for the existence of Jesus as an historical figure is not persuasive. “Jesus remains after 2,000 years the most fascinating figure of Western civilization,” said James Tabor, author of The Jesus Dynasty: A New Historical Investigation of Jesus, His Royal Family, and the Birth of Christianity. “Scholars now at the beginning of the twenty-first century are able to take advantage of a plethora of new texts, sources, and methods, including the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, various lost Gospels that are not in our New Testament, and a rich archeological record.” Tabor says that scholars today find themselves uniquely positioned to examine the issue of who Jesus was in new and challenging ways. During the closing conference round-table, Tabor was quick to emphasize that “the Jesus Project repudiates any theological agendas, special pleading, or dogmatic presuppositions.” All members of the project share a common commitment to the importance of applying scientific methodologies to the sources used to construct the Jesus tradition.
The Project has outlined a set of priorities for its next meetings, including a “consistent” translation of the Gospels, an inquiry into the causes of the canonization of the existing New Testament documents, parallels between Islam and early Christianity in delineating its sacred books, and the need to carve a middle path between what Hoffmann describes as “Da Vinci Code sensationalism and the truly fascinating story that underlies the history of Christianity.”
Papers delivered at the conference will be published under the title “Sources of the Jesus Tradition: An Inquiry,” by Prometheus Books in 2009. The Project’s next conference is scheduled tentatively for May 2009 in Chicago.
CSER was founded in 1983 and is now a research committee of the Religion and Science division of the Center for Inquiry in Amherst, New York. It encourages the use of the historical and applied sciences in the study of religion and provides educational programs for the public as part of its religious-literacy initiatives. The Center for Inquiry/Transnational is a nonprofit, educational, advocacy, and scientific-research think tank based in Amherst, New York. Their research and educational projects focus on three broad areas: religion, ethics, and society; paranormal and fringe-science claims; and medicine and health. The Center’s Web site is www.centerforinquiry.net .
-
Cholera Raging in Zimbabwe
Zimbabwe’s most fundamental public services are shutting down, like the organs of a cholera victim.
-
Maryam Namazie on Launch of One Law For All
Among the signers: Ahadi, Hirsi Ali, Arjomand, Blackmore, Brown, CFI – and rest of alphabet.
-
‘Proof That Faith and Science Can Co-exist’
Of course they can co-exist; that doesn’t mean they both make sense.
-
Religion and Science: Not a Clean-cut Division
EPA administrator has BA from bible college, is beholden to a corporate lobbyist. Amen.
-
The Professionalization of Literature
Instead of reading literature, now we study ‘texts.’ We’ve developed a discipline, with its jargon and its methodology.
-
Another cleric pipes up
Another cleric lets us know there is ‘a lively and important discussion to be had…on the whole idea of the engagement between science and faith; then he gives a demonstration of the way ‘faith’ plays havoc with the ability to think clearly – or the ability to write forthrightly. One of those.
Contrary to popular understanding, the Christian community is not fundamentally anti- science…..[T]hrough the ages and still today, many significant scientists have been and are people of faith, and vice versa.
But that’s beside the point – unless the reverend is making a claim purely about hostility. But that’s where the lack of forthrightness comes in. When he says ‘engagement between science and faith’ does he mean likes and dislikes, friendship versus enmity, or does he mean something about validity as a form of inquiry or knowledge? If he’s just saying ‘some Christians like science,’ he may be right but that’s not really the issue; if he’s saying ‘some Christians like science therefore there is no tension between “faith” and science’ he’s perpetrating a non sequitur.
Richard Dawkins’s resurrected conflict theory, pitting faith and science as irreconcilable mortal enemies, is as offensive to atheist colleagues as it is to those of us who call ourselves people of faith.
But again, that’s beside the point. Never mind how ‘offensive’ it is; is it true?
Taking, as Dawkins and others do, such a dogmatic, fundamentalist view of other people’s opinions and then arguing the absolute correctness of their own view, which is that because a monkey shares 99.99 per cent of our genetic code evolution is proven and therefore there is no God, is not dissimilar to the aggressive and unreconstructed fundamentalist rejection of Galileo those years ago.
Very neat illustration of doing the very thing one is attacking someone else for doing – but I suspect that’s not what the rev intended. That ‘and therefore there is no God’ is just silly. It’s not just a dogmatic, fundamentalist view of other people’s opinions, it’s an outright misrepresentation of them; it’s something too silly to bother saying.
We believe that engaging with views that we do not agree with can be constructive.
Ah – but do you? Because that’s not doing it. Offering a fatuous parody of such views is not ‘engaging with’ them, it’s engaging with a fatuous parody of them.
Among the problems with reducing humans to no more than simple gene-propagating machines is the sense of hopelessness that this engenders. What’s the point in love, in beauty, in compassion, in poetry, in self-sacrifice, if all that we see around us is simply a “momentary cosmic accident”, as Stephen Jay Gould puts it[?]
Once again – beside the point. The issue is, or should be, the truth of the matter, not what sort of sense it may engender. Many defenders of ‘faith’ seem to have a really hard time grasping that very basic distinction.
And the debates remain. Why are humans here? Are we fundamentally anything more than just our genes, and the molecules that compose them? Why does anything exist at all? As the president of the Royal Society, Sir Martin Rees, concedes, “such questions lie beyond science … they are the province of philosophers and theologians”.
No they’re not; not of theologians they’re not; theologians have nothing to offer on the subject. Neither does anyone else, really – no one can offer a definitive answer to those why questions; but theologians actually muddy the water by offering pseudo-answers based on fantasies and wishes.
-
Free at last
Yesssssssssss – Humayra Abedin is free. She’s out, she’s safe, she’s in the hands of the British High Commission, she’s expected to return to the UK tomorrow.
I haven’t felt this lachrymose since 8 pm Pacific Time on November 4th. She’s out. She’s safe. She has her own life back.
London’s High Court had ordered her return to the UK under the new Forced Marriage Act and the High Court in Dhaka has now ruled she must be freed…Lawyer Sara Hossain, representing Dr Abedin, said her client wanted to return to the UK and her family had been ordered to return her passport…She was later released into the custody of the court and handed over to the British High Commission. Dr Abedin is expected to return to the UK on Monday. Judge Syed Mahmud Hossain said her parents’ actions were “not acceptable”.
No they weren’t. Thank you Judge Hossain.
Judge Hossain was shocked.
Yesterday, Judge Syed Mahmod Hossain ordered Dr Abedin’s parents to return her passport, driver’s licence and credit card. “It perplexes me as to why the parents kept her confined and interfered with her personal life. I am shocked,” he said.
Good. A useful lesson.
Dr Abedin’s lawyer, Sara Hossain, said: “Our courts have shown that we can guarantee the liberty of our citizens. This is quite a precedent.”
Damn right.
Now if only we could hear that Jestina Mukoko is free – alive, and free; and that all her colleagues are alive and free too; and that Mugabe has fled to an undisclosed location never to be heard from again – then we could all have a really good sniff.